North Dakota House Passes Egg-as-Person Bill

On Tuesday, one body of North
Dakota’s state legislature voted, 51-41, not only to ban abortion,
but to define life as beginning at conception. Such a measure, considered
extreme even by pro-life standards, would have far-reaching consequences
on women’s health.

State Rep. Dan Ruby introduced
the legislation,
which declares that "for purposes of interpretation of the constitution
and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly
that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference
to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism
with the genome of homo sapiens."

"It was at the bottom of
the calendar and we didn’t expect [the House] to get to it, so it
caught us a little bit by surprise," said Tim Stanley, senior director
of government and public affairs for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North
Dakota, South Dakota. "This bill dangerous, far reaching, and allows
government — not women and families — to make critical decisions about
health care." Some state legislators have
been quoted
saying the intent of the measure is not to ban abortion outright. However,
many legal experts agree that defining life as beginning at conception
would affect access to birth control and emergency contraception as
well as affect in vitro fertilization. "I’m not sure if this is naivete or if this is sincere," Stanley said. "The bottom
line is that our attorneys have looked at this and are extremely concerned."

The state’s legislature,
in a slightly more robust year for anti-choice legislation than usual,
will also be considering other anti-choice legislation this session.
Other bills under consideration would require the state’s only abortion
clinic to place signs outside declaring that no one can force a woman
to have an abortion, and legislation that would mimic South
Dakota’s "informed consent" legislation, a requirement that abortion providers must read a statement to women seeking abortion care stating that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate,
unique, living human being." The state legislature is also considering
a measure that would resolve not to adopt a Freedom of Choice Act. "It’s
a sort of anti-FOCA," Stanley said. But because it hasn’t been introduced
in Congress, "it’s a complete red herring."

Stanley hopes that these other,
"less extreme" measures that he believes will probably pass, will
be enough to "placate" the anti-choice community in North Dakota’s
legislature. Stanley also notes that his Planned Parenthood affiliate
has only been in active in the state’s legislature since 2007 and
is the only pro-choice group that advocates at the state’s legislature.

"The grassroots pro-life
base in North Dakota very vibrant," Stanley said. "This movement,
if it had more of a foundation, be it money or what have you, that they
would be a substantial group. And that I find fairly alarming." During
the panel hearing on the so-called personhood legislation, Stanley said
he followed more than 90 minutes of anti-choice testimony by five or
six anti-choice groups with a about six minutes of testimony pointing
out the unconstitutional nature of the legislation.

The personhood bill will go on to the
state Senate by the end of the week, and Stanley says it is likely not
to be voted on until the end of the legislature’s session, in April.
Stanley believes that ultimately North Dakotans may not want to draw national attention with a challenge to Roe. If the bill does pass, Planned Parenthood’s
affiliate will begin reaching out to the medical and religious community
to begin building a coalition of support to fight the measure.

"My experience had been that
this legislature is grounded in reality, as opposed to some other legislatures,"
Stanley said. "South Dakota is not the most rational legislature when
it comes to this kind of stuff. They’re known as being slightly out
there and willing to take those high-profile risks to fight this fight.
My feeling is that North Dakota is just slightly more reticent to do
that. To their credit they’re not a state that looks [for] and seeks
undue attention."

Egg-as-Person in Pro-Choice Maryland

A state legislator in Maryland
has proposed a similar measure. The state seems like a strange place
for such a measure; it has an overwhelmingly pro-choice legislature
and passed a law that codified Roe v. Wade in 1992. "It’s
public relations for them," said Wendy Royalty, public relations director
of Planned Parenthood of Maryland. "There’s very little likelihood
of [the bill] passing at all."

Delegate Don Dwyer, a socially
conservative delegate who also introduced a ban on same-sex marriage
this week as well, introduced the legislation last week. The judiciary
committee will consider the legislation and the chairman, Delegate Joe
Vollario, is rated anti-choice by NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland. But Maryland’s
house has an overwhelming pro-choice majority, Royalty said, so it is
most likely that the bill will be killed in committee.

"Nobody wants to see a bill
like that get on the floor because all it does is waste everybody’s
time," Royalty said. "We’ve seen the anti-choice people introduce
bills that appear to be more reasonable, but this one will not be perceived
this way." Three other states have introduced similar "personhood"
measures: North Carolina, Montana, and Alabama.

The lesson we might draw from the pushes for personhood legislation in these two states is that it pays to have a legislature that views anti-choice bills as a waste of time. In North Dakota, a strong grassroots anti-choice lobby can go far with incremental legislation because the legislature is far more amenable to its cause — even if it’s hesitant to pass an all-out ban. While many resources aren’t devoted
to Midwestern states until direct attacks on Roe are presented, these states might have an easier
time fighting both incremental and more sweeping anti-choice legislation if a strong anti-choice grassroots
movement there didn’t make being an anti-choice legislator worthwhile.

Banning abortion and believing a human being begins at conception are not “extreme” views. They are just common sense positions. All abortions are murder because they snuff out an innocent human life without due process of law — the very definition of murder. To those who reject the word “murder” to describe all abortions, tell me, please, what you call the taking of an innocent human life, without due process of law? In fact, abortion is banned now precisely because it is murder. Murder can never be made legal — NEVER. As for when human life begins — PLEASE! This is NOT rocket science. Look in any biology book or encyclopedia or go on You Tube and put in the phrase “birds and bees.” A human being begins when an egg and a sperm unite, at fertilization, conception.

When I first read your post, and your “Former Fetus” tag line, I briefly entertained the distinct possibility that your post was sarcasm. Sadly, after reading the ensuing discussions, I realized that you are entirely serious. Wow.

Clearly you feel passionate about your position, which I respect. I wish I saw some evidence that you respect the positions of those that disagree with you. An intelligent, passionate debate can spark wonderful ideas and new areas for growth — however, when people assert their beliefs as somehow absolute, using phrases such as “common sense” (when it is anything but) and “the very definition” (when defining something in a biased and inaccurate manner), it is difficult to maintain a logical dialogue. Your assertions that followed your original post were wrought with inaccuracies, ignorance, and not a small amount of prejudice.

It is irresponsible for any of us to define other’s belief systems. You believe that life begins at conception, and overlay “science” to support you. I, by contrast, believe that life begins when the being becomes sentient — and I also use “science” to support my position. It is illogical to me to accept the assertion that “life” is contained in a small mass of rapidly dividing cells only beginning to differentiate. If I were to accept that definition, then I would also have to accept that “life” existed BEFORE conception, as anyone who remembers videos from science class could argue that sperm certainly are “alive!” (Perhaps eggs are not quite so animated, though if they can “die,” they must have been “alive” beforehand)

It is also illogical to me to accept that a woman and a fetus have “equal rights” — I will not launch into a human rights rant here, but I WILL say that such a belief lies predominantly in an individual’s definition of “life.” Since this varies widely based on perceptions and ideology, it is certainly NOT something that should be legislated.

It seems you are quite passionate about your beliefs, and that is admirable. Sadly, many in our society are apathetic about significant issues that affect their lives and the health of their society. Still, I wonder how empathetic you are toward opposing views. Some of the statements you make are — frankly — a little bit concerning. At times your posts honestly appeared to indicate that you do not truly understand the core issues. Legislation such as that being evaluated in North Dakota has far sweeping potential to adversely affect the freddoms of our society as a whole — your opponents have some very good points.

It is truly my hope that such dialogues will spark empathy on both sides, and enable people to realize that this issue has no clear solution. For now, I will embrace the choices I do have — I am ideologically opposed to abortion, but recognize that is MY ideology, perhaps not the ideology of others. I do not believe in abortion, so I won’t have one (kind of simple, really). However, I am thankful that others who believe differently have access to safe options based on their own belief systems and perceptions. I am blessed to live in a country where I have the freedom to choose what is best for my health and my life as a whole, as do others. God Bless America :-)

invalid-0

Banning abortion and believing a human being begins at conception are not “extreme” views. They are just common sense positions.

Banning abortion is an extreme position, actually. Believing that “a human being begins at conception” is just a boring semantic game.

All abortions are murder because they snuff out an innocent human life without due process of law — the very definition of murder.

That comes from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. What dictionary are you using?

To those who reject the word “murder” to describe all abortions, tell me, please, what you call the taking of an innocent human life, without due process of law?

That depends on how you define “human life.” If it’s, say, anything with human DNA, then one possibility is “biopsy.”

In fact, abortion is banned now precisely because it is murder.

Thankfully, this is only the case in Catholic hospitals and other such religiously-oriented institutions. Could you imagine if it were banned across the entire nation? Good thing that’s not likely to happen.

Murder can never be made legal — NEVER.

Uhh… could you tell that to the U.S. military, please? Please with a cherry on top?

As for when human life begins — PLEASE! This is NOT rocket science. Look in any biology book or encyclopedia or go on You Tube and put in the phrase “birds and bees.”

Wow! I didn’t know you were a fan of Ben Lee and Mandy Moore! So you were at the Take 40 Live Lounge when they performed?

A human being begins when an egg and a sperm unite, at fertilization, conception.

And while the human being is a one-celled zygote, make sure to give him/her a white blood cell to bounce around, or maybe even a cute little bacteriophage to play with. Because when you’re a one-celled human being, it can get awful boring waiting to mitosis to get in gear. You know what I mean, right? I mean, you did go through that, being a former fetus and all….

invalid-0

North Dakota as a state gets it right. One of only three states to show a suplus in the tough times brought on by Barry Obama and the current administration. Great job Republican Gov. John Hoeven. Great job on the abortion issue as well.

invalid-0

And here we go again.

John, how do you envision this law playing out in the real world?

For example…hot tubbing increases the risk of miscarriage significantly, especially during the first trimester. Would advocate for legislation restricting women of childbearing age from indulging in a jacuzzi?

Curious minds want to know.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

“Such a measure, considered extreme even by pro-life standards, would have far-reaching consequences on women’s health.”

Actually, most pro-lifers accept what science, sound reasoning, and this bill all state: that life begins at conception or fertilization. It’s the very heart of the pro-life movement. To call this extreme by pro-life standards is, well, unreasonable at best. Hopefully, this bill will have far reaching consequences on the health of the mother and the fetus.

To me, this whole article points out either the reluctance or inability of many pro-choice advocates to counter the argument that life begins at conception. Instead of attacking the legislation head on by reasoned arguments about when life does begin (or at least why it hasn’t begun at conception), the idea is simply passed off as the “extreme” measures of “slightly out there” or “not so rational” people.

When you can’t argue with the message, kill the messenger, right? Maybe that is not what you intended, and I am not trying to be rude, but that is how it seems to me.

In all honesty, Kay, I would love to hear your thoughts and criticisms of the argument that life begins at conception. Obviously, I am pro-life, and we will disagree, but if we can’t even begin to state our positions rationally without resorting to ad hominem attacks, how can we ever get anywhere?

After all, if life DOES begin at conception, shouldn’t we be protecting it? And if it DOESN’T, well then you are right, we need to overturn this kind of law and get on with the abortions.

So, I would love to hear your thoughts on why life doesn’t begin at conception, and when it does begin.

invalid-0

Hopefully, this bill will have far reaching consequences on the health of the mother and the fetus.

Oh, yes. It definitely will. Pregnant women with cancer won’t get chemotherapy for fear it will kill the fetus. Women of childbearing age will probably be banned from many jobs for fear that on-the-job exposures will harm a fetus. And if women lose their jobs, they lose health insurance. Then where are they?
.
It’s not a question of when life begins. It’s a question of balancing rights. Until viability, the pregnant woman’s rights trump all. Even after viability, a woman’s right to life and health will trump that of a fetus. We don’t force people to go on dialysis or donate organs to help another; why should a pregnant woman be forced to support another if her own life/health is in jeopardy?
.
This bill, if it becomes law, will indeed have consequences. Negative ones. And legislators who claim that “this wasn’t what they intended” are either lying or deluded.

invalid-0

Well Paul, I’d love to hear how you would go about protecting the life you claim exists at conception?

What limitations would you impose on all women of childbearing age? Think carefully here. Rationally, the only way to “protect” blastocyst/zygote/embryo from the moment of conception is to assume that all women of childbearing age are pregnant at all times, and restrict women’s lives accordingly.

You up for it?

invalid-0

Actually, most pro-lifers accept what science, sound reasoning, and this bill all state: that life begins at conception or fertilization. It’s the very heart of the pro-life movement. To call this extreme by pro-life standards is, well, unreasonable at best. Hopefully, this bill will have far reaching consequences on the health of the mother and the fetus.

Umm…

On one side, you have a fertilized, single egg cell.

On the other, you have the woman inside of which happens to be that egg.

You’re saying that that egg cell is SO important (despite it being so small you can’t even see it with the naked eye), that that woman has to be FORCED to carry that egg through pregnancy to birth. Whether she wants to or not. Perhaps even whether she would survive that, or not.

Yeah. That’s extreme. Like, Taliban-level extreme. Please get help.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Thanks for the replies, I’d appreciate it if you check back because I’ll probably have to respond either tonight or tomorrow, what with work and kids and all. I will respond to each of your concerns though, and I really would like to hear what you all have to say about my answers.

Also, I’m still waiting to hear what everyone thinks about when life begins, or why it hasn’t begun at conception.

invalid-0

~ 3.5 – 4 billion years ago.

invalid-0

I just LOVE that these discussions never consider women. Real-life, breathing, working, thinking, feeling, human women. Where are they in this discussion? Or is that the point? At the point of puberty, are women just walking human incubators?

From an article on slate.com late last year by Linda Hirschman:

“In the absence of a robust description of the value of women’s lives—their ability to develop their capacities through education, to use them to achieve economic independence and political citizenship, to take on only the relationships they can manage—there is no moral argument for their “choice” to have an abortion. Set against the sound of nothing, the smallest moral claim of the potential human life looms large.”

I think that’s it. The Japanese Prime Minister in 2007 said it himself – women are “baby-making machines”. Women are valued most as mothers and objects of desire. Anything in between that demonstrates agency of self is completely seen as a betrayal to the gender, more specifically – the purpose of the gender.

invalid-0

I believe that the women are considered in the very beginning. THEY HAD A CHOICE as to whether or not to engage in behavior that may lead to pregnancy!!!!! I get tired of the women as victims role here. When are we going to stand up and take responsiblity for our actions that lead to the pregnancy in the first place????

No they are not incubators from puberty…but when we make decisions they have consequences…I am absolutely all about women making choices for themselves but you must know that your choices will affect others…maybe even a new life!

invalid-0

So when are we going to accept the consequences? Women who get prenatal medical treatments are refusing to take responsibility by overriding the consequences of pregnancy.

invalid-0

Could you restate that? I am not sure I understand what you mean. Thanks!

invalid-0

I am sorry to say that men have not changed since the bible was written. They are self centered egotistical monsters that can not see past their own noses to see others even of their own species as equals. Jesus did though, in fact Jesus saw women as equals and things began to change until his death. So you see history is repeating once again the men are on the’ put women back in the slavery era.’ We have to keep on fighting this miserable game of theirs. Oh and by the way Adam came from Eve’s rib it has been scientifically proven. I do not see any scientific proof that men are any better than women! Leave our bodies alone they are ours to do with as we see fit. So BACK OFF!!!

invalid-0

Personnaly, I think life begins at conception. However, I also recognize that this life is not yet a person or entity on it’s own. Simply according to dictionary definitions, it can’t possibly be:

Self : the union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person

Person:
1)a self-conscious or rational being.

Entity:
being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained

Other than a body, a fetus has no emotions, thoughts, or even sensations when almost all abortions are performed. In fact, until the fetus is self-sufficient, it has basically the same status (except for the emotion attached to it by expectant parents and such) as any other growth of cells within the body. If your definition is a set of unique DNA, cancer has a set of unique DNA, and is technically alive, but isn’t considered a person either.

So having answered your question, here’s mine. I hope you will have the civility to answer it. Given that a fetus is alive, how do you weigh the rights of a fetus (with no life, experiences, consciousness, attachments, or even self-awareness) against the rights of a woman (which does have life, experiences, consciousness, attachments, and self-awareness)? Personally, I think the rights of a full human being trumps the rights of a living cluster of cells. If it were the other way around (which this bill would do since it defines as a person anything with a human genome), then things like excising a cancerous lump would be illegal (given that the cancer has human genome, and has a unique set of DNA, and would therefore be a person, and is killed by excising it). There are so many far reaching consequences to this that on practicality alone it shouldn’t be passed. So I’m looking forward to your answer to my question.

invalid-0

Clearly you’re missing the point. The point being: laws like this will make common forms contraception illegal. I find your arguments neither scientifically, politically, or socially sound. Contraception is a luxury of the West. Yes, a luxury. If you can afford it, great. If you can actually get it, great. But millions of women around the word cannot afford it and/or are are completely ignorant or misguided about it (thanks to political maneuvers like Global Gag Rule and recent HHS Provider “Conscience” rule) and do not have a choice to remain abstinent. You’re also neglecting to consider other issues such as rape/incest, contraception failure, maternal health, fetal health, in-vitro fertilization industry/practices, genetic/heredity issues. But since women are really just walking human incubators, none of that matters. Protect compulsory reproduction at all costs Why? Just as I quoted above, there is no real measure to the value of a woman’s life outside the realm of providing life to another. The realm of the female is public property. As Joan Gould wrote, women “can manage to be more than body, but there’s no way we can ever be less.” Simultaneously object and subject… maybe a lot more of the former than the latter.

invalid-0

Why are you attacking men? Are you saying that there are no pro-life women? I agree, the Bible says all are created equal and in His image. What I don’t get is all the animosity toward men with regard to this issue. Obviously women also voted for the men in government if that is who you refer to as men who want women to be slaves. I don’t think that is really the agenda of men. I happen to know more prolife women than men…so how is it that men are solely responsible?

No one is saying you can’t do with your body as you see fit. The attempt is to protect the children who God created which are the result of your “freedom”. You apparently respect Jesus at some level, so why not respect the Bible in it’s view that God creates all life and only He has a right to end those lives?

invalid-0

If anyone would like to contact the person who pushed this through, here is his contact information:

Listen Dan, contrary to popular belief, the vagina is not a clown car.

clydweb

I love this argument that women who have sex with fertile men have to accept motherhood as a logical consequence. So, you’re basically arguing that women who don’t want to get pregnant shouldn’t have sex with men? Sometimes I do wish we could organize a Lysistrata type action to stop women from having sex with men (unless they are looking to get pregnant) until men recognize that women have a right to sexual pleasure.

Any woman who chooses an abortion IS taking responsibility. She has evaluated her health, circumstances, values and obligations, and has determined that ending the pregnancy is the responsible thing to do.

Next.

invalid-0

Parsing here, but my guess is that there are avoidable consequences and then there are avoidable consequences.

If women are obliged to accept all the natural and social negative consequences of unwanted pregnancy, then prenatal care is unnecessary. Let nature take its course.

invalid-0

Consider bringing children into the world, when the mother is unfit or there is no father around. The mother has no job and means of support for this child(ren). This to me is subjecting a child to a life of hardhship and trouble.
This to me is similar to murder, only in a long drawn out process.

STOP producing babies that are not really planned.

STOP people from producing babies just to get into the welfare system.

Look at what this OCTO-MOM has done. Life is not a carnival. This woman should be locked up. Ship her back to whatever country she came from and STOP letting all kinds of whackos from entering into this country.

invalid-0

Words fail me.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Dr. Dredd, I’ll start by saying that pregnant women must, and indeed already do, sacrifice some freedoms because of the life (or potential person if you prefer) that they carry. These must reasonable precautions, though so lets address the worrisome consequences you raised in your first paragraph.

“Pregnant women with cancer won’t get chemotherapy for fear it will kill the fetus.” If the mother is not treated for the cancer, it will kill her. Since the mother and the fetus have EQUAL rights to their lives, it is reasonable to administer chemotherapy to the mother to save her life, in light of the fact the death of the fetus is not the intended result. (On a side note, does anyone know if a fetus can or has survived chemotherapy treatment?)

“Women of childbearing age will probably be banned from many jobs for fear that on-the-job exposures will harm a fetus. And if women lose their jobs, they lose health insurance.”
Why, because they could be pregnant? I’d like to see the legal basis for that claim. If they were pregnant, they should avoid the risk of harmful exposure anyway, because it is a living human being they carry. Just pick up any embryology textbook, or even a book written in 1933 by Planned Parenthood’s own Alan Guttmacher called Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation. All agree that when conception is complete, a new life has begun.

“It’s not a question of when life begins. It’s a question of balancing rights. Until viability, the pregnant woman’s rights trump all. Even after viability, a woman’s right to life and health will trump that of a fetus”
Why? You can’t just throw out statements like this and not back them up with reasons. Without the requirement for reasoned arguments, all I have to do is say “no, you are wrong”, and we get nowhere. Why, if life begins at conception, are rights endowed at some later point? And what does viability have to do with the fetus? After all, the point at which a fetus becomes viable is dependant on OUR abilities and limitations, not that of the fetus.

“We don’t force people to go on dialysis or donate organs to help another; why should a pregnant woman be forced to support another if her own life/health is in jeopardy?”
There are a couple of problems with this analogy. This is a mother/child relationship we are talking about, how would you feel about the situation if it was a mother who refused to give a kidney to their son or daughter? We would all be horrified if a mother refused to give up her kidney and watched her child die, and rightfully so. Parents have a responsibility towards their children, because we brought them into this world. Indeed, it is the greatest responsibility in the human experience. The donor in your analogy is not the cause of the recipients condition. Parents are the cause of the fetus’ condition. And I really do mean both parents. Men who abandon their pregnant girlfriends/wives/etc get off waaaay too easy in our society.

invalid-0

There are a couple of problems with this analogy. This is a mother/child relationship we are talking about, how would you feel about the situation if it was a mother who refused to give a kidney to their son or daughter? We would all be horrified if a mother refused to give up her kidney and watched her child die, and rightfully so. Parents have a responsibility towards their children, because we brought them into this world.

Blew by this earlier, Paul. Permit me to point out that however horrified people might be…there can be no law FORCING anyone to give up an organ for anyone else.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Many here seem to think the sole purpose of this law is restrict women’s rights so that they are quarantined barefoot in their kitchens from their first period to menopause. This law states the requirements for personhood, it states nothing about the requirements to protect personhood.

Personhood is defined so that our inalienable rights remain, well, inalienable. It does not mean that we stick women in holes so that nothing bad happens to their babies. If that were the case, we’d ALL have to be stuck in holes, because we are ALL persons, and therefore we’d ALL have to be protected.

invalid-0

Wait, so a woman can get a medical treatment that unintentionally but forseeably kills her child? You can’t just throw statements out like this. Wheres that exemption to homicide laws? or involuntary manslaughter laws? Someone has to take an action to deliver or receive the chemotherapy knowing in advance it has the potential to endanger the child – and even if you know there is a potential, when that danger does occur you are held accountable for doing so when children are at stake.

invalid-0

If parents are the cause of the fetus condition, then if its born needing an organ due to prenatal development as such then they are the cause of that too. You can’t say they are only the cause of conditions we desire to happen. All sorts of issues happen during pregnancy and fetal development that are entirely natural and are known outcomes…just not the ones we’re hoping for.

invalid-0

Its not about how we go about protecting the lives of anyone else…it would be about protecting the lives of children where parents have an obligation and there are specific laws on child endangerment that come into play for the parent or guardian.

invalid-0

Can you kill someone to save yourself from a natural death, and especially if you’ve been deemed to have ‘chosen’ the condition? Death is a natural and known condition of pregnancy, no less than any of the other consequences of pregnancy.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

My point was that this bill is not extreme by pro-life measures, which is what Kay stated in her article. YOU may think it is extreme, but it is most assuredly not extreme by pro-life standards. Google some pro-life blogs and see how many you can find any that are up in arms about the extreme nature of this bill and then compare that to the number that are in favor of it.

“You’re saying that that egg cell is SO important (despite it being so small you can’t even see it with the naked eye)…”
Since when does size determine importance? You can’t see a hydrogen atom, but see watch what happens when you cut one in half!

Oh, and what about embryonic stem cells? They are pretty small, yet all I hear about them is their immense power and how important it is to end the life of a human embryo so we can harness this power.

“…that that woman has to be FORCED to carry that egg through pregnancy to birth.”
So because this human life is SMALL, we should be able to end it?

“Whether she wants to or not.”
Human life is only valued when it is wanted? Who gets to say who is wanted and who isn’t? What if I told my wife I didn’t want one of the two childern we have right now, should I be able to kill it? One is only three months old, is she too big already?

“Perhaps even whether she would survive that, or not.”
Again, if these are two human lives, then they have EQUAL rights, and equally valuable lives. See my response to Dr. Dredd regarding the pregnant mother with cancer.

“Like, Taliban-level extreme. Please get help.”
This is just immature.

You’ve actually supported the premise of my original post. You can’t state why life does or doesn’t begin at conception with any kind of reasoned argument, and you end up resorting to attacking my character by comparing me to the Taliban of all things. Thank you.

invalid-0

Equal rights has never been determined to give one person the right to anothers body to maintain their life…under any condition.

invalid-0

Embryonic stem cells are kept alive, its the cells that make up the placenta and non-fetal membranes that are discarded.

invalid-0

This is just immature.

You’ve actually supported the premise of my original post. You can’t state why life does or doesn’t begin at conception with any kind of reasoned argument, and you end up resorting to attacking my character by comparing me to the Taliban of all things. Thank you.

So if a woman has a single-celled “human life” inside her, she does not have the right to terminate it. It doesn’t matter whether she wants to do so, or how badly she wants (or thinks she needs) to do so. She HAS to nurture that single-celled organism into a baby, until it is born. There is no escape… not even when that human life is a single cell, too small for the naked eye to see.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

I appreciate your response, and the chance to have a reasoned and civil exchange. I think we might both agree to be THE civil rights issue of our times. After all, if the pro-life movement is right about this, lots of innocent people are dying, and if the pro-choice movement is right, than women should absolutely have the right to abortion. Anyway, I’ll respond to your response and then answer your question!

“Personnaly, I think life begins at conception.”
Alright! We can agree on something! Life begins at conception! Lets have a beer! :)

“However, I also recognize that this life is not yet a person or entity on it’s own.”
Ok, I can see your point (I don’t agree, but more on that later). Just so that I am sure I understand, your position is that life begins at conception, but personhood begins at some later point. I am assuming that you would begin to grant human rights to this human life and the point that personhood is acheived, correct? The next logical question to help us move the dialog forward is when do you think personhood begins and what are your criteria?

“Simply according to dictionary definitions, it can’t possibly be:
Self : the union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person
Person:
1)a self-conscious or rational being.
Entity:
being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained”

I would agree that the zygote does not have all of these traits you have listed here, but I would hardly consider a simple dictionary as a proper source for the foundation of arguments about a topic as profound as the nature of personhood in regards to human rights.

The problem is, there are many living humans out there that do not possess all of these criteria for person. Some of the severely mentally disabled are not rational. Infants are not self-conscious, nor are they rational, nor are they independent. Conjoined twins are not self-contained or independent. Yet, we still consider all of these instances to be human persons.

“Other than a body, a fetus has no emotions, thoughts, or even sensations when almost all abortions are performed.”
Neither do people in comas.

“In fact, until the fetus is self-sufficient,…”
Hold on, what do you mean by self-sufficient? Newborns are anything but self-sufficient, and they people. I may be missing your point here, and I’d like to avoid misunderstandings so we can debate effectively.

“…it has basically the same status (except for the emotion attached to it by expectant parents and such) as any other growth of cells within the body. If your definition is a set of unique DNA, cancer has a set of unique DNA, and is technically alive, but isn’t considered a person either.”
I don’t agree at all here. First off, the mother’s body is a whole that has parts, and these parts are living cells. You are trying to say that the fetus is just another group of these living cells, however that is not true scientifically. Half of the physical material making up her DNA actually came from the father, so there are tiny bits of the father in that fetus, and obviously these parts did not come from the mother.

I am not only talking about a unique genetic code (although that clearly also separates the child from the mother), I’m actually talking about the physical pieces of the DNA that came from the father. So we have physical pieces from two wholes coming together to form a new whole, both in physical make up and genetic code.

Cancer does not qualify as human life anymore than one patch of skin growing on my hand qualifies as human life. The cells that make up cancer maybe alive, like the cells in my skin, but they are simply a part of my body. Your claim that regarding the “uniqueness” of cancer DNA is also questionable. If I remember correctly, and it’s been awhile so it is possible I am wrong here, transcription errors that happen in any cell can result in slight (non-cancerous) changes in DNA sequence from one cell to another, yet this is not considered unique DNA. Therefore, a bad copy of DNA does not equal an entire unique genome. The special uniqueness of the zygote’s DNA comes from the fact that it was formed from the combination of two separate organisms individual DNA.

Also, the cancer example doesn’t work because this law states an “organism” with a unique human genome. Cancerous tissue does not consist of an entire organism.

“So having answered your question, here’s mine. I hope you will have the civility to answer it.”
Gladly, and thank you for answering my question openly and civilly.

“Given that a fetus is alive, how do you weigh the rights of a fetus (with no life, experiences, consciousness, attachments, or even self-awareness) against the rights of a woman (which does have life, experiences, consciousness, attachments, and self-awareness)?”
First, I am a bit confused here, you agree that a fetus is alive, but then say it has no life. Usually, when you say something has no life you either mean that it is non-living matter or it was once alive but now is dead. I will assume you mean life experience, or personal history, am I correct?
Second, and in answer to your question, I would say that rights of the fetus are equal to that of a woman (or man) because having human rights doesn’t depend on any of the things like attachments, self-awareness.

Human rights do not come from what we can do (mentally or physically), they are not based on merit. Human rights do not come from a group of people getting together and deciding where these rights come from, or who they are assigned to, no matter how well meaning (or powerful) these people are.

Human rights belong to every human simply because they are human. That is why they are called human RIGHTS, and not human PRIVILEGES.

“Personally, I think the rights of a full human being trumps the rights of a living cluster of cells.”
You and I are just a living cluster of cells. Is it the number of cells or just the size of the cluster that makes us different from the fetus? (I am not trying to be snarky, I believe that is a fair question).

“If it were the other way around (which this bill would do since it defines as a person anything with a human genome), then things like excising a cancerous lump would be illegal (given that the cancer has human genome, and has a unique set of DNA, and would therefore be a person, and is killed by excising it). There are so many far reaching consequences to this that on practicality alone it shouldn’t be passed.”
I have already addressed the cancer, and as far as all of these far reaching consequences, I would refer you to my reply to ahunt above.

“So I’m looking forward to your answer to my question.” I hope it was satisfactory, I’ll certainly answer further questions you may have. I really do appreciate the honest and civil debate, but I do feel that you sort of dodged my question, since you stated that life begins at conception, but you think that human rights are granted with personhood, but you never mentioned when you thought personhood began. I would be very interested to hear when you think this is, and why.

Again, Kay, thank you for the interesting and civil dialogue. And sorry for all the typos that are probably in this post, but its really late. :)

invalid-0

Personally, I think that personhood is at birth. However, I still hold with the idea that once the fetus is viable outside the mother’s womb the only real reason for an abortion would be health of the mother type exceptions.

“Some of the severely mentally disabled are not rational. Infants are not self-conscious, nor are they rational, nor are they independent. Conjoined twins are not self-contained or independent.”

You make a decent point here, but are missing one major thing. Part of being a person is life experience. All these instances you mention have that, even an infant. By independent, I mean that their physical life not not depend on direct nourishment or influence from another’s body. An infant can live off of a bottle, a fetus must have direct nourishment from the mother. And honestly, I feel that we should be able to terminate a person in a coma if that is their wish (as defined by a living will or having otherwise communicated their desires to a loved one.) Part of the dignity of human life is having the right to die with dignity as well.

Also, even though I can’t disagree with your facts, I have to say that having bits from the father is, for this arguement, irrelevant. He’s not the one giving up 9 months of his life, putting his life on the line (pregnancy and childbirth are still very dangerous) and then potentially even more time and energy nursing and caring for the child. His physical and medical involvement ends once he’s ejaculated, so that’s hardly an argument for anything.

And by life, experiences etc, I accidentally put a comma in there, and did mean life experience.

Even though you say that they have equal rights, there’s still no arument against abortion. At this point, no one has the right to force another person to give of their own bodies to sustain that person’s life. No one can force me to donate blood or an organ, even though it might save them. So even IF the fetus has full and equal rights, it doesn’t have the right to force the woman to house it in her body and give of her own physical resources to keep it alive. Therefore, if she doesn’t want to do that, she has the right to say no, and have the fetus removed.

As to all of us being a living cluster of cells, so is a cow. So are any other animals. But many people have no problem killing them. What sets us apart, and makes us people, in my opinion, is our rationality, our experiences and thoughts and feelings. A fetus or embryo has none of those, and even if it’s human, it’s not a person. Before any of that, we’re just animals, like anything else.

I also take into account that in many cases, an abortion is necessary to a woman living a full life. Many times it is chosen as a way of protecting her already existing children. When the question is the well being of several children, and the woman and probably a husband as well, does one not-yet-sentient, not-yet-a-person cluster of cells balance against all the rest of them? It would literally ruin many women’s lives to have a child, and unwanted pregnancies have so many effects on our national well being as well. I can’t see that it’s fair to do all that damage, and then bring a child into terrible circumstances. It would be cruel to the child, and unfair to society.

invalid-0

im sorry, but the US constitution protects our beliefs as individuals, and you may BELIEVE that life begins at conception with all your heart BUT under our US constitutional rights we, the rest of us americans, are protected in OUR beliefs . This means that YOU CANNOT LEAGALY impose your beliefs on any other citizen. IF you do not believe abortion is right, dont have one. And if you support pro-choice, that supports the idea that people who dont believe abortions are right SHOULD NOT GET THEM, while also allowing the people who want or need them to get them.

invalid-0

So you care about the source that brought about the unique DNA, not the fact that its a unique DNA/human genome as in cancer? In other words its not the status per se of the cells that you care about…you care that a sperm found a way in. Also, the term organism has uses that are broadly used, as in cancer, or more narrow uses of which require independent life…of which the fetus is not capable of until viability.

invalid-0

Not following, Paul. Either the blastocyst/embryo/fetus has the same rights as any other person or it does not. There is no mushy middle.

I train horses for a living, a high risk occupation. If I were to take a header off one of my horses while carrying my two month old infant, resulting in harm or death to my child, I would be charged with serious crimes. What, under the proposed law, is the difference if I, 3 months pregnant, get tossed, resulting in a miscarriage? I have willfully endangered the pregnancy by my choice of occupation, and under the personhood definition…just killed a person.

Please carry the consequences of this proposed legislation through to the logical conclusions.

mellankelly1

So because this human life is SMALL, we should be able to end it?

Actually, because the human zygote, embryo and/or fetus resides within the uterus of the pregnant woman, she should be the one to decide whether or not she is willing and/or able to remain pregnant, give birth and raise or adopt the child out. How you or anyone other than the pregnant woman feel about the size of the conceptus is irrelevant.

Human life is only valued when it is wanted?

What do you mean by "human life"? If you mean the biological life of the zygote embryo and/or fetus, it’s value is determined by the pregnant woman… how you or I feel about her pregnancy is irrelevant.

Who gets to say who is wanted and who isn’t? What if I told my wife I didn’t want one of the two childern we have right now, should I be able to kill it?

No person has made this claim. If you do not note a difference between your children and my pregnancy, that would appear to be your issue… not mine. Most rational people are capable of recognizing that their children are not one and the same as a pregnant woman’s zygote (embryo and/or fetus.) Further, your fallacy that allowing women to make decisions regarding their pregnancies is somehow on par with allowing you to murder your children reflects a serious lack of logic.

Again, if these are two human lives, then they have EQUAL rights, and equally valuable live

You may opine that the biological life of a zygote is on par with the lives of pregnant women, but I will vehemently disagree. In addition, it is impossible to "share rights" – a woman has the same rights as any other person (in this Country at least); women do not give up certain rights immediately upon becoming pregnant. Further, we cannot give zygotes superior rights to people (i.e. a zygote cannot force a woman to risk her life &/or health); & it would be unconstitutional for the government to have control over the bodies of pregnant women.

Please do describe the "life" of the zygote for me. I would also appreciate if you would describe the life of the pregnant woman. Also, if you could sum up why you believe that the biological life of a zygote is more compelling than the life, health and/or personal beliefs of the pregnant woman, it would be most helpful.

Thanks for your time.

invalid-0

“Dr. Dredd, I’ll start by saying that pregnant women must, and indeed already do, sacrifice some freedoms because of the life (or potential person if you prefer) that they carry. These must reasonable precautions, though so lets address the worrisome consequences you raised in your first paragraph.”

And there you go, Paul. You are in fact arguing that a blastocyst/embryo/fetus should be granted greater rights under the law than the living, breathing woman.

Now carry your argument through to the logical conclusions. If a blastocyst/embryo/fetus is entitled to “equal” protection under the law, then there is virtually no realm of human endeavor that women may not be excluded from, based on the potential for harm to the b/e/f. Employment, hobbies, food intake, physical activities, etc… all have the potential to impact negatively on a pregnancy.

What you are advocating is a legal foundation for the wholesale removal of women from public life, setting the stage for government control of all aspects of women’s lives…

Sure you wanna go there?

invalid-0

Paul, this is a repost, but it gets to the heart of the argument.

Kaiser Permanente researcher De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, found that women who used hot tubs or Jacuzzis after conception were twice as likely to have a miscarriage as women who did not.

“Based on our findings I would say that women in the early stages of pregnancy — and those who may have conceived but aren’t sure — might want to play it safe for the first few months and avoid hot tubs or any exposure to hot water that will significantly increase body temperature,” says Dr Li. “Although the finding is still preliminary, it is prudent for women to take such precautionary measures to reduce unnecessary risk of miscarriage.”

The study, “Hot Tub Use during Pregnancy and the Risk of Miscarriage,” found that the miscarriage risk went up with more frequent hot tub or Jacuzzi use and with use in the early stages of a pregnancy. Furthermore, among women who remembered the temperature settings of their hot tubs or Jacuzzis, the study found some indications that the risk of having a miscarriage may increase with higher water temperature settings.

The study was conducted among 1,063 women, and participants were recruited in the study on average at 40 days of gestational age. The information on hot tub or Jacuzzi use was obtained through in-person interviews.

This is the third study on miscarriages released by Kaiser Permanente in the last two years. In August, the British Medical Journal published a study showing the increased risk of miscarriages in women who used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Exposure to high levels of magnetic fields — especially early in pregnancy — can also significantly increase a woman’s risk of miscarriage, according to research published in Epidemiology in 2002

Pay attention here, Paul. Assuming hot-tubbing is high risk behavior that can result in spontaneous abortion:
What is the moral distinction between a pregnant woman who, with intent, takes 2 hot tubs a day and successfully miscarries, and the pregnant woman who takes 2 hot tubs a day, and without intent but aware of the risks, also miscarries?

By your own reasoning, under this proposed legislation, a law prohibiting women of childbearing age from taking a jacuzzi is entirely consistent and logical. As you’ve already stated, you would oblige women to sacrifice their freedoms and rights based on the potential for harm to the b/e/f.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethalalternatives/ invalid-0

A libertarian can claim not to impose morality on others; a liberal who says that is kidding her/himself. Protecting gays and women requires that we impose morality upon those who would deny them equal rights, and protecting the unborn requires the same imposition of morality.

Science is not the issue. ( BTW, I wonder how may who think laws should not interfere with science when it comes to the unborn think the same when it comes to developing nuclear weapons. ) The issue is potential life, as in “the unborn are only potential life.” What do they mean “ONLY” potential life? We all want our potential lives protected, often by laws. That is what the whole social security concern is for most of us – we are potential retired or disabled persons and we want that potential life or ours protected.

I don’t see how I can demand that laws protect my remaining few decades of potential life, yet deny any protection to the century of potential life each unborn zygot or fetus has.

I also can’t see forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months or see how any law will convince many women to let their unborn live … unless nonlethal methods of terminating unwanted pregnancies are developed.

just a quick post to say that I hope to be able to sit down and post some replies at the earliest tonight, but more likely tomorrow or Sunday. (Gotta have some fun w/ friends and family this weekend). I will reply though, and I’d like to hear your responses.

Anon & others, I will get back to you too (well, maybe there is more than one of you, I’m not sure, a handle at least would be helpful). It will take time to reply to you all though.

invalid-0

Paul…you need to weigh in.

Because it really comes down to the basic question this legislation raises…are women individuals in their own right…or are women simply walking wombs?

invalid-0

Killing without intent is involuntary manslaughter.

invalid-0

So the decision is between making women endure nine months’ of pregnancy or prenatal endure a life time of no life?

invalid-0

a newborn who needs a parents organ is in the same situation.

invalid-0

Appreciate the reply, Paul.

Meanwhile, folks can ponder the following:

1) My girlfriends, one who competes in off-road biking, and another who races motorcycles…would like to know if they would be obliged to take a pregnancy test before every competition, and be denied the right to compete if the test indicated a pregnancy?

2) Would women who possess a short luteal phase be obliged to undergo (hypothetical) treatment to ensure their fertilized eggs the best chance for implantation? Remember kids…life begins at conception.

3) Would pregnant women be subject to public monitoring of their habits, lifestyle, employment, physical activities, relationships and medical decisions?

Paul…you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim superior rights for the b/e/f while simultaneously insisting that those rights exist only within reason. By claiming superior rights for the fertilized egg…draconian restrictions and vile public intrusion becomes reasonable.

invalid-0

From 4/2008: “Surprisingly, the United States ranks 41st in maternal mortality in the world and dead last among industrialized nations, despite our unprecedented wealth and advanced medical technology. Sadly, maternal mortality is the leading killer of women of reproductive age throughout the world” Rep. Lois Capps.

From 7/08 at salon.com:
“Scott Moss, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School, points out, “If a pregnant woman is really two people with exactly equal rights, then it is not clear the
pregnant woman can undergo any medical treatment that jeopardizes a fertilized egg.”

Zygote Personhood is the first step, people, lest you forget Bush wanted to do with the Health and Human Services Rule pushed through at the eleventh hour that originally tried to redefine common birth control as an abortifacient. Remember that?

Why should I be surprised that many of the reader’ express such inhumanity to women?

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

I may not get to everyone tonight, be patient though, I mean to reply to everyone that has replied to me.

“Either the blastocyst/embryo/fetus has the same rights as any other person or it does not. There is no mushy middle.”
ahunt, I completely agree. However, your criticisms of this law and my defense of it are faulty in the following ways:
1. In stating that when I say pregnant women must (and already do) make sacrifices for the the survival of the fetus, I am stating that the fetus’ rights take precedence over the mother’s rights,
2. That these rights would provide the legal basis for complete control and exclusion of ANY woman of childbearing age from the public square, regardless of whether or not they are pregnant.
3. You are not saying that what the bill states is false. (This was the point of my original post on this article)

Lets start with #1.“And there you go, Paul. You are in fact arguing that a blastocyst/embryo/fetus should be granted greater rights under the law than the living, breathing woman.”
All of our rights have boundaries when they meet with the rights of others. No one has unlimited rights, they are always limited precisely BECAUSE the people around us have equal rights to us. If this were not true, I would be able to run every stop sign I saw and drive as fast as I wanted on my way home from work no matter how many times I ran over my own kids playing in the street.

Or, if you prefer, we can look at it this way. We all, always, have to sacrifice our personal freedoms for our children. I have a two year old and a three month old. There are many things that I cannot do because I have a responsibility to watch them. For example, I would love to take more continuing education to further my mastery of my profession, but it simply isn’t feasible since the courses are often several consecutive days at a distant destination. My wife and I would also love to buy kayaks and do some river and sea kayaking. Again, all of this is not possible without putting our kids up for adoption, they simply take up too much time in our day. As you can see, I barely have the time to get on here and reply to all of you! :) My inalienable rights do not absolve me of responsibility towards my children.

In a society where people have equal rights, everyone’s rights are limited when our purposes would violate the rights of others. This is especially true when we consider what rights are being violated. Three of the most basic rights that we have, as found in the Declaration of Independence, are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. These rights are hierarchical, we cannot pursue happiness without liberty, and we cannot have liberty without life. I cannot kill you to remove an obstacle to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Saying that the mother must sacrifice some of her freedoms to the fetus isn’t arguing for an imbalance of rights at all, in fact it is the only way of arguing for equality of our most foundational right, the right to life.

Ok, on to the second point. First you stated this:”What you are advocating is a legal foundation for the wholesale removal of women from public life, setting the stage for government control of all aspects of women’s lives…”
And then this:”Rationally, the only way to “protect” blastocyst/zygote/embryo from the moment of conception is to assume that all women of childbearing age are pregnant at all times, and restrict women’s lives accordingly.”
You state that you are just “following the law to its logical conclusion”. I disagree completely, and here are my reasons.

First and foremost, you are operating under the assumption that the laws that would be preventive in nature, where women would be subjected to random pregnancy tests, barred from certain jobs if they were within the ages of the average childbearing years, simply to protect the unborn child from harm. Lets look at your hot tub example:”By your own reasoning, under this proposed legislation, a law prohibiting women of childbearing age from taking a jacuzzi is entirely consistent and logical.” That’s not my reasoning at all. You are saying here that any sixteen year old girl who took a hot tub could go to jail. However, if she’s not pregnant, than all she’s done is get wet, which isn’t a crime. No judge or jury would deliver that verdict. Even if she was pregnant and didn’t know it, and even if she miscarried shortly after her hot tub incident, there is no way of know if indeed it was the hot tub that caused the miscarriage. Without causality, that case won’t hold up in court, either.

You also brought up an interesting question regarding intentions in the hot tub, so I’ll give you my answer to that, too.”What is the moral distinction between a pregnant woman who, with intent, takes 2 hot tubs a day and successfully miscarries, and the pregnant woman who takes 2 hot tubs a day, and without intent but aware of the risks, also miscarries?”
The distinction is as you stated it; the intent. It’s malice verses negligence. You could possibly build a case in court here (note this is a reactionary case and not a preventive case) IF you have enough evidence of the woman’s behavior. However, you’d still need to prove that it was the hot tub that caused the miscarriage and not something else; and considering that most miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormalities and the rest are extremely difficult to determine the cause, this would be a very heavy burden of proof for the prosecution to bear.

But again, your example would be a prosecution of an alleged crime that has already been committed, whereas “draconian restrictions and vile public intrusion” by nature are preventive measures. It’s not like they’d set up armed guards around every hot tub, or that women would be kept under house arrest for fear of a visit to their favorite spa, which would be required to achieve “the wholesale removal of women from public life”. We just don’t operate that way, and I’ll take another of your examples to prove my point that these restrictions must (and can) be reasonable.”My girlfriends, one who competes in off-road biking, and another who races motorcycles…would like to know if they would be obliged to take a pregnancy test before every competition, and be denied the right to compete if the test indicated a pregnancy?”
I don’t have to take a breathalyzer every time I leave a restaurant and drive my kids home in our car.”Would pregnant women be subject to public monitoring of their habits, lifestyle, employment, physical activities, relationships and medical decisions?”
I am not subject to public monitoring of my habits, lifestyle, employment, physical activies, relationships and medical decisions for the safety of the born children I have now!Would women who possess a short luteal phase be obliged to undergo (hypothetical) treatment to ensure their fertilized eggs the best chance for implantation? Remember kids…life begins at conception. This question is so hypothetical it is virtually unanswerable. What are the risks of the treatment? What are the side affects? What’s the efficacy of the treatment?

In regards to your horse training example, if your physician clearly recommends you not do certain activities while pregnant, and you willingly ignore his advice with full knowledge of what may happen to your child, you could be charged w/ negligence. Some people may not like that position, but if it IS a human person, isn’t that justice?

That leads me to my third and most relevant point. You aren’t saying that what the law states is false. You, too, are dodging the question of when life begins and/or when it gets rights. If what the law states is true, well then justice requires that we employ reasonable means to protect them! If the law is false, then we ought to strike it down. But before we can do that, we must show why it is false.

In summary, your conclusions are faulty because:
1. Any group of people living together will require some sacrifice of personal freedom, not because some have rights and some don’t, rather because all have equal rights (we can’t all eat as many pieces of the same pie as we want)
2. We don’t and cannot create laws that prevent every crime, because they would result in EVERYONE from being quarantined into their own little box. Rather, we use the reasonable measure of punishing crimes after they are committed.
3. You cannot argue that the statement the bill makes is false just because you are concerned about hypothetical ramifications. You can be concerned about the ramifications, but that has no bearing on whether or not what the bill states is true or false. We must examine the claim the bill makes first.

So, ahunt, when do you believe life begins, and when do you believe that human life gets human rights?

invalid-0

My girlfriends, one who competes in off-road biking, and another who races motorcycles…would like to know if they would be obliged to take a pregnancy test before every competition, and be denied the right to compete if the test indicated a pregnancy?

If you think “life” starts at conception, as Paul does, then a pregnancy test would be unhelpful. There is NO TEST to determine if someone has conceived, only if they are pregnant (medically defined as when the egg implants. your body recognizes this as the beginning of pregnancy, too, this is when it starts “behaving” pregnant, ie releasing hormones, stopping ovulation, etc.)

Basically to protect all fertilized eggs your girlfriends would have to be forbidden from their activities unless they were sterilized.

BTW, I don’t really care if it’s human or not. No human has the right to use my body against my will. Even multi-celled humans. Why grant single cell humans more rights than multi-celled ones??

And as to when does life start, it started around 4 billion years ago and hasn’t stopped since. I believe a fertilized egg is just as alive as an unfertilized egg. That’s why when you have a period, your egg dies. (how could it die if it was never alive?) Sperm LIVE for up to 5 days after ejaculation! Or are they dead until an egg gets them? That makes no sense, clearly they were alive.

How do these ppl who think pregnancy starts at conception suggest we determine who is pregnant and who is not?? The only sure-fire way to be sure would be to inspect everyone’s tampons and see if the egg on it was fertilized or not. And then what? punish women who’s eggs didn’t implant? how do u know if it’s natural or not?

If we followed through with these dumb laws and tried to protect fertilized eggs, all women of childbearing age would have to be considered “pre-pregnant” and be forbidden from a large amount of activities, since there is no way to tell if they are carrying a fertilized egg or an unfertilized egg until it’s too late.

invalid-0

Should government allow the child to force the parent to give up the parent’s life for the child‘s sake?

invalid-0

who said a parent needs to give up their life in order to give blood (also an organ) or a segment of liver?

emma

I’m sorry to use net-speak, but…omg. ‘Former fetus’?

John Lofton, are you a really bad parody? If so, props for hilarity.

emma

You make it sound as if pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience in a woman’s life. Pregnancy places extreme amounts of stress on women, both physically and emotionally. And the effects don’t necessarily ‘just’ last for nine months. Some women experience post-natal depression or even post-natal psychosis. The depression may be life-long and unresponsive to treatment. A possible consequence of severe depression is suicide. Psychosis is an incredibly severe psychiatric illness that is likely to require medication, hospitalisation, and so on.

Bear in mind also that a woman with, say, bipolar disorder, who may face an increased likelihood and post natal depression, is likely to have to cease or change her medication during pregnancy due to foetal risk, thus placing her psychiatric health at further risk.

Pregnancy is a lot more than just nine months of minor inconvenience. If someone believes that we should respect the life and rights of a diploid cell, then it would be appropriate, I think, to show a great deal more respect for the women who make many sacrifices and sometimes endanger their own lives and health to allow two haploid cells to become a person. Pregnant women are granting a foetus the privilege of being gestated – and I would argue that being gestated is a privilege, not a right.

I see very little respect for women – who, in pregnancy, perform an act of tremendous generosity – from those who call themselves ‘pro-life’. Instead, women are treated like idiots, incubators, dangerous psychopaths, irrational lunatics who foolishly object to being forced to gestate pregnancies, and so on. You want something from us, and yet you are not willing to grant us respect or consideration. You are convinced that carrying a pregnancy to term is the correct response in every circumstance, ignoring the nuances of each woman’s situation, each woman’s life.

In essence, the incessant focus on foetal rights and the idea that there is one solution that is correct and applicable in every instance ignores the the fact of our personhood entirely.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

…or are they individuals in their own right carrying individuals in their own right?

Again, it all comes down to when you believe that life begins, and when human rights are granted to that human life.

invalid-0

when you believe that life begins

Wtf does that even mean? Life began a long time ago. It certainly isn’t beginning again everytime two cells join together.

invalid-0

Well Paul, like you, I’m pressed for time today…so I’m just going to take on a couple of your points now.

“All of our rights have boundaries when they meet with the rights of others. No one has unlimited rights, they are always limited precisely BECAUSE the people around us have equal rights to us.”

You are not proposing equality of rights. You are conferring superior rights to a fertilized ova.

“There are many things that I cannot do because I have a responsibility to watch them. For example, I would love to take more continuing education to further my mastery of my profession, but it simply isn’t feasible since the courses are often several consecutive days at a distant destination. My wife and I would also love to buy kayaks and do some river and sea kayaking. Again, all of this is not possible without putting our kids up for adoption, they simply take up too much time in our day. As you can see, I barely have the time to get on here and reply to all of you! :) My inalienable rights do not absolve me of responsibility towards my children.”

Irrelevant. There is no law preventing you from reordering your lives to suit your own desires. Permit me to point out that you are FREE to make the choices you’ve made.

“First and foremost, you are operating under the assumption that the laws that would be preventive in nature, where women would be subjected to random pregnancy tests, barred from certain jobs if they were within the ages of the average childbearing years, simply to protect the unborn child from harm.”

Again, you miss the point. Absent a legal foundation, such restrictions are unlikely to pass constitutional muster. You are advocating for a legal foundation for precisely these kinds of intrusions and limitations. Consider the following:

Pregnant women would be legally barred from smoking under a proposal being considered by lawmakers in Arkansas, the Associated Press reported June 13.

State Rep. Bob Mathis (D-Hot Springs) said that fellow lawmakers should study whether the health risks facing children born to smokers warrants a ban. Gov. Mike Huckabee said the proposal made sense, at least from a health perspective.

“I haven’t thought it through all together in terms of the legality of it,” Huckabee said. “From a health standpoint, heck yeah, it makes sense.”

But both Huckabee and Mathis are about to leave office, meaning the proposal has little chance of progressing. Mathis also proposed a bill making it illegal to smoke in a car with children in car seats. Huckabee recently signed that bill into law, along with a measure banning smoking in indoor workplaces.

“There are a lot of things pregnant women shouldn’t do. That’s just one of them,” Huckabee said, adding: “The point is, if you’re going to make that against the law you’re probably going to have to extend it to all the other things that are equally unhealthy for the child.”

More later.

invalid-0

“1. Any group of people living together will require some sacrifice of personal freedom, not because some have rights and some don’t, rather because all have equal rights (we can’t all eat as many pieces of the same pie as we want)”

Again…you are not arguing for equal rights.

“2. We don’t and cannot create laws that prevent every crime, because they would result in EVERYONE from being quarantined into their own little box. Rather, we use the reasonable measure of punishing crimes after they are committed.”

I have every reason to expect that the preventative laws will emerge, simply by noting that the vast majority of laws are preventative in nature. Feel free to give us any law that does not have at its core…prevention of a specific condition. You are correct, however, in essentially noting that negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter/depraved indifference laws will cover any lack of specific legislation.

“3. You cannot argue that the statement the bill makes is false just because you are concerned about hypothetical ramifications. You can be concerned about the ramifications, but that has no bearing on whether or not what the bill states is true or false. We must examine the claim the bill makes first.”

Well, since the unfertilized ova is not dead, I would have to assume that life began some 600 million years ago. And since I make no claim as to the truth of the bill, but rather, question the wisdom, reasoning and ramifications of the bill in terms of establishing the personhood of a fertilized egg, I doubt there is any answer that would satisfy you.

BTW, you may think that passing legislation without considering the consequences is rational and workable. I do not.

More later.

invalid-0

No, “walking womb” is an accurate assessment if in fact the rights of a fertilized ova trump a woman’s right of ownership of her body.

http://www.individualism.com/ invalid-0

Planned Parenthood has more than enough money to hand out contraceptives until they are blue in the face. And, defining a human as a human is really just mere logic, no? If a fertilized human egg is not human, than what species does it belong to?

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Kay, thanks for your polite discussion. Even though we are both passionate about our opposing views, I can honestly say I enjoy debating ideas and putting my convictions “to the fire” to ensure they hold up with folks like yourself who are willing to debate w/out resorting to name calling. There is too much of that from both sides of this issue. Anyway, here is my rebuttal.”Personally, I think that personhood is at birth.”
Ok, I have a few (actually, a lot of) questions about this. If personhood starts at birth, than that is when this baby gets full human rights, including the right to life, and the right to bodily autonomy which you bring up later, correct? If not, I can’t imagine why we would even bother talking about personhood.
My first question is this, what if the head, shoulders, and torso were outside of the birth canal, but the feet were not, could killing this fetus be considered abortion? What if the just the head and shoulders were out, or just the head, could we kill that fetus and call it abortion?
I know these questions seem a bit silly, but they point out a fatal flaw in the idea that personhood begins at birth. The only thing different about the fetus/child in these instances is his or her location. Inside the canal? No rights. Outside the canal? Rights galore. There is absolutely no measurable difference in the development of the fetus from the time that the mother walked into the hospital to the time that the child is laid on the delivery table.
What is perhaps even more relevant, is that you state later on in your comment that ”What sets us apart, and makes us people [emphasis mine], in my opinion, is our rationality, our experiences and thoughts and feelings.”, but there is no significant difference regarding these capabilities in the fetus that is inside it’s mother’s womb a few hours before birth and the child on the delivery table after birth.
Birth has nothing to do with our rationality, experiences, thoughts, and feelings, so to define personhood based on these four things and then to say that birth is the point at which we gain these traits is completely inconsistent, illogical, and has no basis in the science of fetal development.
Take, for example, Amillia Taylor, who was born just after 21 weeks of gestation (and is now about 2 years old). By your own logic, she was a person at birth. And yet, there are approximately 18,000 abortions that take place at 20 weeks or later in the United States which I assume you support (1.4% of 1.3 million). By your own logic, either Amillia was a person when she was born and these other 18,000 children were murdered, or Amillia was born but she wasn’t yet a person. Which is it?
FURTHERMORE, I would respectfully submit that the pro-choice establishment doesn’t really care about personhood anyway (you admit to this later on when you bring up Thomson’s “famous violinist” argument). The majority would state that personhood begins at birth, would you agree? If personhood really starts at birth, than why are we calling what happened to Sycloria Williams’ baby a “botched abortion” instead of murder? If the clinic worker truly took the born, living child, who by your own definition has achieved personhood, and threw it in a biohazard bag so that it would die, how is this not it murder?
Phew, ok, I promise not go on quite so long with the rest of my responses, but I really feel like I could not leave any of that out. ”However, I still hold with the idea that once the fetus is viable outside the mother’s womb the only real reason for an abortion would be health of the mother type exceptions.”
Why? If by your own definition life begins at conception and personhood begins at birth, what does viability have to do with anything? Why should a viable life who’s value you equate to that of an animal (”A fetus or embryo has none of those, and even if it’s human, it’s not a person. Before any of that, we’re just animals, like anything else.”) take precedence over the mother who is ”giving up 9 months of her life, putting her life on the line?” And people say pro-lifers are misogynists! (I am not saying that you personally are a misogynist, Kay, but I am having hard time understanding how this viewpoint is not.)”Part of being a person is life experience. All these instances you mention have that, even an infant.”
Please explain the life experience of an infant, especially one that has just been born in the last few seconds.”By independent, I mean that their physical life not not depend on direct nourishment or influence from another’s body. An infant can live off of a bottle, a fetus must have direct nourishment from the mother.”
Can the infant lift the bottle, or prepare the bottle, or go to the store and buy the formula, or make the formula? Bottle feeding an infant requires a whole lot of direct influence from other people’s bodies, as anyone who has spent long hours up in the middle of the night bottle feeding their children already knows.”And honestly, I feel that we should be able to terminate a person in a coma if that is their wish (as defined by a living will or having otherwise communicated their desires to a loved one.) Part of the dignity of human life is having the right to die with dignity as well.
It is certianly your right to have this opinion, but it is completely irrelevant to the abortion issue since we cannot obtain consent from the life that we are “terminating” or euphemising, er, excuse me euthanizing, or killing. (Ok that was pretty snarky, sorry but I couldn’t resist.)

”Also, even though I can’t disagree with your facts, I have to say that having bits from the father is, for this arguement, irrelevant. He’s not the one giving up 9 months of his life, putting his life on the line (pregnancy and childbirth are still very dangerous) and then potentially even more time and energy nursing and caring for the child. His physical and medical involvement ends once he’s ejaculated, so that’s hardly an argument for anything.”
I’ll completely agree that the father has it infinitely easier “after the lovin” (anyone know who sang that song?) especially if he is a deadbeat. I’ll also say that we don’t do nearly enough to hold these losers accountable for their behavior. However, when bringing up the fact that half of the genetic code comes from the father, and indeed half of the physical material that makes up the physical strands of DNA comes from him as well, I was not trying to argue the point that men have a say in this. I’ll restate my argument here, I do admit sometimes I do not communicate clearly enough.
You had originally said this: ”In fact, until the fetus is self-sufficient, it has basically the same status (except for the emotion attached to it by expectant parents and such) as any other growth of cells within the body.” which strongly implies that the fetus is just another body part of the mother. This of course is false because in order for it to be part of the mother’s body, it must have the same DNA as the mother. Also, parts of the fetus are actually from the father, so how can that be part of the mother?”And by life, experiences etc, I accidentally put a comma in there, and did mean life experience.”.
I hear ya, after writing about this stuff, I get so concentrated on the content I don’t even see the grammer mistakes half the time.”Even though you say that they have equal rights, there’s still no arument against abortion. At this point, no one has the right to force another person to give of their own bodies to sustain that person’s life. No one can force me to donate blood or an organ, even though it might save them. So even IF the fetus has full and equal rights, it doesn’t have the right to force the woman to house it in her body and give of her own physical resources to keep it alive. Therefore, if she doesn’t want to do that, she has the right to say no, and have the fetus removed.”
Wait wait wait!!! What was all that talk about personhood then??? Why even discuss it if it is irrelevant??? I will be very frank with you, Kay. It seems very much like the pro-choice movement is grasping at straws. Most people who defend abortion start off by saying that “it isn’t human life yet, anyway, so we aren’t killing a person”. Then, when confronted with the evidence that life indeed begins at conception, they say “ok, ok, but it isn’t a PERSON yet”, and then say that “personhood begins at birth, so we may be killing human life, but we aren’t killing a person”. Then, when they are confronted with the completely inconsistent and illogical nature of that position, they say “ok, ok, it may be alive, and it may be a person, but it has invaded my body against my will, so I am killing a living human person but it’s ok because the baby is attacking me”.
Ok, I’ll look at that paragraph again. ”At this point, no one has the right to force another person to give of their own bodies to sustain that person’s life. No one can force me to donate blood or an organ, even though it might save them.”
Your argument falls apart right off the bat, even though these statements are true in and of themselves. However, they are irrelevant because being an organ donor is not the same as being a pregnant mother. In the organ donor situation, I have no relation to the potential recipient or the cause of his or her malady, and therefore I have no responsibility towards them. However, as a pregnant woman, I have a mother/child relationship to the living human person (with fully equal rights as you have granted) and I and the father are responsible for the condition of the fetus. The fetus didn’t force itself into my uterus, I put it there. I created that life. Whether I intentionally created that life or not does not change the fact that I created it. Therefore, it is a direct consequence of my own actions, and therefore I am responsible for them.
Here’s where this argument breaks down even further. For the sake of argument only, I’ll concede that carrying the fetus to term would violate the mother’s bodily autonomy. However, you have granted ” full and equal rights” to the fetus. This means we have two persons who’s rights are interfering with each other. Therefore, we must examine which rights are being interfered with, and by whom, and on what level each parties rights are being infringed upon. If we kill the fetus, we have violated its right to life and every other right it has. If it has no life, it can have no liberty, and no pursuit of happiness, NO BODILY AUTONOMY (since the abortion will destroy the fetus’ body), and no other rights, EVER. If the mother has to carry her pregnancy to term, her right to bodily autonomy, and I’ll grant that some of her right to liberty have both been temporarily violated.
So, both parties right to bodily autonomy has been violated, so bodily autonomy cannot make a distinction between who’s rights are more negatively affected in either outcome. Since the case of abortion would revoke the absolute and foundational right to life of the fetus, and permanently revoke all other rights, we must rule in favor of the fetus.”I also take into account that in many cases, an abortion is necessary to a woman living a full life.”
“A full life” is a completely subjective term and therefore we could argue on and on about its meaning and affect on the abortion issue, but we would never get anywhere because it lacks objectivity.”Many times it is chosen as a way of protecting her already existing children. When the question is the well being of several children, and the woman and probably a husband as well, does one not-yet-sentient, not-yet-a-person cluster of cells balance against all the rest of them? It would literally ruin many women’s lives to have a child, and unwanted pregnancies have so many effects on our national well being as well. I can’t see that it’s fair to do all that damage, and then bring a child into terrible circumstances. It would be cruel to the child, and unfair to society.”
All of this would be relevant if you could see into the future and know who was going to suffer in life or cause suffering to others, but you can’t. Who would have thought, looking at the conditions of Barack Obama’s birth, that he would be the first African American President of the United States. You are actually stating here that you can look at the conditions of a child’s birth and accurately predict whether or not this person will be blessing to the child’s family and society at large, or a curse. I’m don’t mean to be rude Kay, but that is nothing short of playing God.

invalid-0

Is a fertilized human egg unique from the pregnant?

invalid-0

My first question is this, what if the head, shoulders, and torso were outside of the birth canal, but the feet were not, could killing this fetus be considered abortion? What if the just the head and shoulders were out, or just the head, could we kill that fetus and call it abortion?

Paul…your civility is deeply appreciated by all of us…but this one is strawman, and I think you know it.

Take, for example, Amillia Taylor, who was born just after 21 weeks of gestation (and is now about 2 years old). By your own logic, she was a person at birth. And yet, there are approximately 18,000 abortions that take place at 20 weeks or later in the United States which I assume you support (1.4% of 1.3 million). By your own logic, either Amillia was a person when she was born and these other 18,000 children were murdered, or Amillia was born but she wasn’t yet a person. Which is it?

Again there are statistics and there are statistics. My SIL needed a therapeutic abortion at 22 weeks due to fatal fetal defect. You are promoting the sham argument that women dither around until “almost viability” and then suddenly choose to abort.

And to answer your question…Amilla was ACTUALLY born, and is therefore considered a person entitled to all the protections of the law. We endured two consecutive stillbirths at 20/22 weeks…and outside the immediate family, there was NO sense that two persons had died.

More later

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

”Well Paul, like you, I’m pressed for time today…so I’m just going to take on a couple of your points now.”
Fair enough ahunt, and thanks for being patient while waiting for my reply to your criticisms. I spent a good deal of time replying to Kay, and so I had to wait till tonight to get to your comments. MellanKelley1, and ever-so-indescribable Anonymous, I hope to get to your reponses too… but please be patient with me. I’m just one little ol’ lonely pro-lifer here!”You are not proposing equality of rights. You are conferring superior rights to a fertilized ova.”
I hope this is one those points you plan on addressing later, because you haven’t refuted my argument. I’ll restate it again; in any society where everyone enjoys equal rights, our rights become limited by the rights of others. I have the right act upon my will, or do as I please (the right to liberty) UNTIL those actions violate the rights of others. This does not mean that the other person has rights that are superior to mine, it means they have rights that are EQUAL to mine. This is the foundational reasoning behind every law from homicide laws to traffic violations.
If every person has equal rights, and the zygote is a person, than the zygote and the mother have equal rights. It is clear that we would agree with the first part of the sentence, but our central disagreement is the second part. Since our arguments for the third part of the sentence depend on where we stand on the second part, we cannot debate meaningfully about the third part until we have each clarified our stance on the personhood of the zygote. I am still waiting for your clarification on where you believe life and personhood begin, ahunt. ”Irrelevant. There is no law preventing you from reordering your lives to suit your own desires. Permit me to point out that you are FREE to make the choices you’ve made.”
I’ll concede that I am free to make the choices I have made, and I’ll also concede that my examples didn’t illustrate my point very clearly. However, I disagree that I can just reorder my life to suit my desires without considering my responsibility towards my childrenand not suffer legal consequences. We can’t just leave the house for a few weeks to go take some continuing education and go sea kayaking without making arrangements for our children, that would be abandonment. This does not mean that our children have superior rights over us, rather we have equal rights, so whatever we do we must also consider their rights. We have a responsibility to be mindful of the rights of those around us, especially our own children, this is the foundation of all of our laws.
If the the fetus is a person, than it has rights equal to the mother. If the mother doesn’t wish to be pregnant because it infringes upon her liberty, we must remember that an abortion would violate the fetus’ right to life. Since the mother’s right to liberty is equal to the fetus’ right to liberty, and the mother’s right to life is equal to the fetus’ right to life, and there is no escaping the fact that either the mother or the fetus will have their rights infringed upon, we must look which person will have their most foundational right violated, which would be the fetus in the case of the abortion. Therefore, the abortion is unjustified from civil rights point of view.
I think this is where you and I are missing each other here. You see, I am not saying that the fetus has a more superior set of rights than the mother has. Rather, I am saying that some rights are superior to other rights. Lets take the big three as stated in the Dec. of Ind: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We all have a right to the pursuit of happiness, yet we cannot pursue happiness if we have no liberty to act on our will. Therefore, I cannot violate your right to liberty by making you a slave so that I can work my plantation to pursue happiness. We all have a right to liberty, yet we cannot act on our will if we are dead. Therefore, I cannot violate your right to life by running you over with my car just because you happened to be in the middle of the road I was on, and I didn’t want to stop because I would then be late for work. The right to pursue happiness is subject to the superior right to liberty, and the right to liberty is subject to the superior right to life. That’s why I said that the a woman may get chemotherapy in Dr. Dredd’s example even if it possibly harms or kills the fetus, because two people with equal rights have equally foundational rights at stake, the right to their own life; it is a wash.”Again, you miss the point. Absent a legal foundation, such restrictions are unlikely to pass constitutional muster. You are advocating for a legal foundation for precisely these kinds of intrusions and limitations. Consider the following: [potential smoking ban for pregnant mothers proposed by Huckabee and Mathis]”
A smoking ban for pregnant women is hardly the wholesale removal of women from public life, setting the stage for government control of all aspects of women’s lives…, which is what I was arguing against in the passage you quoted. More on this further down the post, but first let me ask if I correct in saying that you think it’s ok if pregnant mothers smoke? If I understand it correctly, there is strong correlation between smoking and increased incidence of prematurity, low birthrate, and an increase in SIDS. Should pregnant mothers be allowed to drink alcohol. Hell, why not let them take thalidomide, it isn’t a person, it has no rights, so why not? But then again, we don’t know if you think it’s a person or not ahunt, so we can’t really debate effectively about any of this either.
Ok, on to your next commentAgain…you are not arguing for equal rights.
You stated this premise before, and I responded with the reasons behind my statement, and you responded with your original premise without refuting the reasons behind my argument. Please, show me the error in my argument if you are going to keep saying this, otherwise we get nowhere. ”I have every reason to expect that the preventative laws will emerge, simply by noting that the vast majority of laws are preventative in nature. Feel free to give us any law that does not have at its core…prevention of a specific condition”
I will agree that the purpose of a law is to prevent a specific condition, but the point I am making is whether the law is preventive or reactionary in its execution. I’ll give you some examples. We react to a murder by arresting the suspect and trying them after the murder has happened. However, we force those that appear to be minors to show ID when attempting to purchase alcohol or tobacco. The first law is reactionary in execution, the second is preventive. In order to achieve ”the wholesale removal of women from public life, setting the stage for government control of all aspects of women’s lives…, it would require laws that were prevented in nature, probably involving women taking pee tests every third step.
I am arguing that a personhood bill would not provide the legal foundation for this, as you state. Why? Because my children are recognized as legal persons, yet neither I nor my wife, nor our babysitters are subjected to anything near the preventive measures you suggest. No public monitoring, no random breathalyzer everytime I get into a car, etc.”Well, since the unfertilized ova is not dead, I would have to assume that life began some 600 million years ago.”
Ok, I am trying hard not to be snide here. This argument isn’t rational by any sense. First off, we are clearly, obviously, irrefutably discussing when a new life within the human species arises, we are not talking about the first instance of life on the planet. Please ahunt, you are more rational than that.”And since I make no claim as to the truth of the bill, but rather, question the wisdom, reasoning and ramifications of the bill in terms of establishing the personhood of a fertilized egg, I doubt there is any answer that would satisfy you.”
Can you explain how you can question the wisdom, reasoning, and ramification of anything if you don’t examine the truth of what it is you are talking about? That’s like saying, lets examine the wisdom, reasoning, and ramification of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation without deciding if slaves are free people. It is basically admitting that you are offering up your opinions about something you know nothing about.
As far as the answer that would satisfy me, well, I didn’t ask for that. I asked for the answer that satisfies YOU.
ahunt, you are losing your grip on rational arguments here because you refuse address the central question in the abortion debate; are the unborn living persons? We know that the mother is, and therefore has the aforementioned rights. If the fetus is not a person, abort as needed! If it is a person, abortion is not justified.”BTW, you may think that passing legislation without considering the consequences is rational and workable. I do not.”
I would hardly be spending all of this time debating this topic with you all if I felt that way. I really believe that if we are to stand up for something, we had better be willing to think critically and challenge our own beliefs. You do not seem willing to do this with your own beliefs about when life and personhood begins. With the exception of Kay, everyone else (including yourself) has proven my point that pro-choicers will avoid any real debate about the legitimacy of abortion.
Ok, to respond to your last comment that responded to my response to Kay (haha… its late, forgive me)”Paul…your civility is deeply appreciated by all of us…but this one is strawman, and I think you know it.”
And likewise regarding the civil discourse, ahunt. However, I don’t think this is a strawman at all, and if you want to say my arguments don’t hold up, please back it up with reasons. I’ll do likewise. So, I don’t think this is a strawman because those questions point out that the birthing process is essentially involves a change in location. The development of the fetus has nothing to do with it. Kay had stated earlier that personhood depended on our “rationality, our experiences and thoughts and feelings”, but then she stated that personhood began at birth. Since birth has nothing to do with rationality, experiences, thoughts, or feelings, her position is utterly inconsistent, illogical, and unscientific, and impossible to apply to real life.”Again there are statistics and there are statistics. My SIL needed a therapeutic abortion at 22 weeks due to fatal fetal defect.
In all sincerity, ahunt, I am sorry to hear that. I am sure that was tough on everyone. I can’t imagine how it would feel, having watched my wife go through pregnancy, having to lose it that late in the game. Again, my sympathies.“You are promoting the sham argument that women dither around until “almost viability” and then suddenly choose to abort.”
Not at all! My argument had nothing do with a woman’s timing or reason’s to abort. I was simply pointing how Kay’s conflicted definition of person as occuring at birth and requiring rationality, experiences, thoughts, and feelings is impossible to apply to reality. Amillie was born at 22 weeks, therefore by Kay’s logic, either Amillie was a person and many of the 18,000 other childern aborted after 20 weeks were also persons, and therfore should not have been killed. Or Amillie was born but not yet a person because she fullfill the rationality, experience, though, and feelings requirement, in which case infanticide could be justified. (Please note, I am not saying that anyone here supports infanticide, only that this position could be used to defend it.)
Wow… late agian. I look forward to everyone’s replies. I really will try to get to some of the others as well.

invalid-0

“In the organ donor situation, I have no relation to the potential recipient or the cause of his or her malady, and therefore I have no responsibility towards them.” She didn’t exclude all possibilities, including cause/relationship in her example.

invalid-0

KFC announces that North Dakota stores will henceforth provide only fried eggs to customers.

Isn’t it a violation of the 14th Amendment to treat an egg as a human being, but not a sperm. Clearly all menstruating women in North Dakota must be locked up for manslaughter, but all pubescent boys will have to be shipped to the Hague for genocide. Will Pamela Sue Anderson be charged as an accessory?

invalid-0

My big toenail has human DNA and hence must be a human being. Likewise, when I cough up phlegm, it’s a human being. Every drop of my saliva and sweat is a human being. I shed millions of skin cells and hundreds of hairs every day–each containing the very same material in the egg cells that fail to implant for whatever reason in the endometrial walls of the womb, or are removed from the womb, if implantation is unwanted at a given time. The tradition is that Jesus had long hair, but certainly he lost a few along the way, even if he wasn’t a regular at the barbershop. Every woman in the bible, whether harlot or saint, if she was sexually active, she shed fertilized human ova. No creature in the universe performs more abortions than God. Now it’s your chance the say that such decisions must be left to God, because it is a moral and ethical issue. Strangely, anti-choice people think that humans, or specifically human women, are incapable of making moral and ethical decisions. But yesterday I read about the wolverine–when food is scarse or conditions too harsh to raise a litter of pups, the female wolverine aborts spontaneously. Do wolverines make moral or ethical decisions? Obviously, the decision to abort is completely natural and can be found throughout nature, created by God, blessed by God, sanctioned by God, and even performed by God.

Glad I could help out.

invalid-0

A debate can be had about whether or not rights extend to a certain area that doesn’t hinge on a question of personhood per se. Not allowing a man so called “equal rights” over a woman’s body doesn’t mean he’s not a person. A child’s a person thought they lack the right to vote. Regardless of being a person, they don’t have these rights.

invalid-0

Is there no difference between a fertilized human egg and an unfertilized human egg?

invalid-0

I love (and I mean that in the most sarcastic way possible) how commenter “Paul” has not only time to come on here and make the same circular reasoning and strawman arguments about how women should give up their bodies, lives and their rights to a single celled blastocyst but then get goes on a tangent about his *own* pweshus chylldrun.

Paul if you think that they are so valuable and precious- WHY are you wasting your time on the internet arguing with people who oaren’t goign to change their minds? Go and enjoy your children- who EXIST and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their own lives! You’ll be happier and less on edge about how people are “rude” to you after you are rude and judgemental to them.

invalid-0

Well Paul, there is a bit of disingenuous sidestepping here. You ignored the following:

“There are a lot of things pregnant women shouldn’t do. That’s just one of them,” Huckabee said, adding: “The point is, if you’re going to make that against the law you’re probably going to have to extend it to all the other things that are equally unhealthy for the child.”

Note: ALL other things.

Yet you continue to bury your head in the sand, denying that granting superior rights to a fertilized ova will have any discernible impact on the lives of women, that the legislation will not have the effect of narrowing what employment, activities and hobbies women may participate in…while simultaneously agreeing that no law need be passed to prosecute pregnant women for engaging in activities that may be detrimental to the pregnancy. You cannot have it both ways.

And yes, Paul…you are arguing for superior rights, not equal rights. No “person” has the “right” to commandeer another person’s body. The right does not exist.

You keep demanding an answer to when life begins, and I gave you one. You just didn’t like it. Using the “when life begins ” red herring as the standard for determining personhood is simply opinion rhetoric: insisting that a zygote is a person is as ridiculous as insisting an acorn is an oak tree.

Also, in regards to Amilie, let me again point out that miscarriages and stillbirths may be tragic for the individuals involved, but the wider world does not view such events as the death of “persons.” Had Amilie been stillborn…she would not be regarded as a person.

As far as pee tests go…check out Tennessee’s latest proposal. Ugly.

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, relative to testing for certain substances in pregnant women.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1.Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 5, is amended by adding Section 2 of this act as a new part thereto.

SECTION 2.
(a) The general assembly declares that, as a matter of public policy of this state and in
the interest of public health, pregnant women who abuse alcohol and drugs pose a risk to their unborn children. Pregnant women who meet certain criteria, as determined by the department, through rules and regulations duly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5, shall be tested for alcohol and drugs in order to encourage them to seek immediate treatment for an alcohol-related or drug-related problem.

(b) If the department levies a fee or charge for the cost of testing, it shall use the same billing and collection methods normally used by independent private laboratories. Any fee shall be waived for patients who are unable to pay.

Paul,
You are absolutely incredible in your knowledge and sharing of that knowledge. Keep fighting the good fight brother!

therealistmom

… the other has 46. That’s… about it.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

”Well Paul, there is a bit of disingenuous sidestepping here.”
Ok, ahunt, if you want to bring my attention to a point that I did not answer to your satisfaction, please do so at anytime. But please, do not ever suggest that I am being disingenuous. I have put a lot of effort into having an honest, civil debate, where I address each point that you or Kay has brought up, and I have done so by citing your comments line by line and responding to each piece. Again, if I have not answered to your satisfaction, please draw my attention to it.”You ignored the following:
“There are a lot of things pregnant women shouldn’t do. That’s just one of them,” Huckabee said, adding: “The point is, if you’re going to make that against the law you’re probably going to have to extend it to all the other things that are equally unhealthy for the child.”
Note: ALL other things.”
Yet you continue to bury your head in the sand, denying that granting superior rights to a fertilized ova will have any discernible impact on the lives of women, that the legislation will not have the effect of narrowing what employment, activities and hobbies women may participate in…while simultaneously agreeing that no law need be passed to prosecute pregnant women for engaging in activities that may be detrimental to the pregnancy. You cannot have it both ways.”

You misunderstand me. Any group of humans living together in a society requires that they all restrict some of their freedoms so that the equal rights of all are protected. I acknowledge that recognizing the zygote as a human being may restrict some of the freedoms of the pregnant mother, and that these restrictions are reasonable and indeed already practiced today by the countless number of pregnant women who are currently taking their doctor’s advice. This has hardly resulted in the “the wholesale removal of women from public life, setting the stage for government control of all aspects of women’s lives…”, that is what I am arguing against. A discernible impact is one thing, government sponsored quarantine is another thing altogether.
To further my point, I’ve noted that the only laws you have been able to produce don’t even come close to this “wholesale removal” and “control of all aspects” of women’s lives that you are talking about. The smoking ban is only a proposal, and one who’s own proponents admit that its legality may be questionable, and another law, that when enforced, would only encourage women to attend counseling to help rid themselves of a drug or alcohol problem, and then pay for it if they couldn’t. I still don’t see “the wholesale removal of women from public life, setting the stage for government control of all aspects of women’s lives…”. You would probably argue that foundation for this will be laid if the fetus is recognized as a human person, but I have already contended that it will not, as my own children are recognized as human persons and no such draconian laws exist to protect them.
And, speaking of sidestepping, you never answered if you are ok with pregnant women smoking, drinking, or using recreational drugs, anyway. If these activities are ok, why was the use of thalidomide banned, or any other teratogen? Could it be because they pose a health risk for the child, and we recognize that the mother has a responsibility for that child?”And yes, Paul…you are arguing for superior rights, not equal rights. No “person” has the “right” to commandeer another person’s body. The right does not exist.”
I’ve already refuted this in response to Kay, but I’ll do it again.
You are correct, no one can commandeer another’s body. It is a moot point, however, because the fetus didn’t commandeer the mother’s womb. How did the fetus get in the womb? It didn’t secretly crawl through a nostril while the mother was sleeping. It didn’t use a gun to force a doctor to surgically place it in the womb. The fetus had nothing to do with its attachment to the mother. The mother put the fetus in the womb. Whether it was intentional or not, the mother is responsible for the attachment of her child to her. Everyone knows the biological purpose for sex is making babies, and that it is always a possible outcome. Arguing that someone consented to sex but didn’t consent to pregnancy is like arguing that you consent to walking a tightrope but didn’t consent to falling off. It can happen, and everyone knows it. ”You keep demanding an answer to when life begins, and I gave you one. You just didn’t like it.”
No, you didn’t give an answer to the question I asked. I asked when life begins, in the clear and unmistakable context of our discussion, which is the beginning of a new human life that arises from human procreation. You answered the question of when all life originated.
That is not answering the question.”Using the “when life begins ” red herring as the standard for determining personhood is simply opinion rhetoric:”
How is debating the determining factors of personhood a red herring when the very bill we are discussing puts forth a determining factor or personhood? It is you who is throwing out red herrings when you say things like ”What you are advocating is a legal foundation for the wholesale removal of women from public life, setting the stage for government control of all aspects of women’s lives…”
I am the one actually trying to discuss what the bill actually says, and you say I am throwing out red herrings?insisting that a zygote is a person is as ridiculous as insisting an acorn is an oak tree.”
Ok, why? Defend your position. Also, in regards to Amilie, let me again point out that miscarriages and stillbirths may be tragic for the individuals involved, but the wider world does not view such events as the death of “persons.” Had Amilie been stillborn…she would not be regarded as a person.
But Amillie was not stillborn, and therefore according to Kay’s principles of personhoood she was a person, and since she defines personhood as a human life with rationality, experience, thought, and feelings, Amillie had enough of all of these qualities to meet Kay’s professed requirements for personhood. Of course this would mean that any fetus aborted after 22 weeks was actually a person endowed with human rights. Or it could mean that even though she was born, she didn’t meet the rationality, experience, thought, and feelings requirement that Kay set forth, and therefore was not a person. If we don’t consider born babies people, infanticide becomes ethical.
I am simply trying to point out that birth, which is the point at which Kay says personhood is granted, has nothing to do with the onset of the characteristics that she uses to define personhood.As far as pee tests go…check out Tennessee’s latest proposal. Ugly.
Now I am no lawyer, but as I understand it enforcing this law results in encouragement that the woman attend counseling if she is found to have a drug or alcohol problem (counseling would be a good thing for this woman), it is not forced upon her, and they would pay for it if she can’t. Also, drug tests aren’t issued at random to every woman of childbearing age as you suggested ”Rationally, the only way to “protect” blastocyst/zygote/embryo from the moment of conception is to assume that all women of childbearing age are pregnant at all times, and restrict women’s lives accordingly.”, but rather only if there is enough evidence to suggest that a mother is a drug user.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

thats very kind, and overly generous, of you to say! :)

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

My kids are asleep.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

…that was me by the way.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

…not sure if I’ll have a chance to post while I’m away. I’ll be reading though, and I’ll be back Monday night or Tuesday. Have a good weekend everyone.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

in either my response to Kay’s 2nd comment on when she thinks personhood begins, or my latest novel reply to your latest post.

What can I say, brevity is not my thing.

invalid-0

I appreciate your post describing the current push in several states to give a fertilized egg the same rights as the individual. I find it very surprising that such a definition has even been proposed. An individual person is separate, autonomous organism that is capable of surviving on its own. Based on this definition, I do not think that a fertilized egg is therefore a living individual, for it cannot survive (read: live) autonomously. The criterion of a self-sufficiency to define a living individual is important. Otherwise, what is to stop one from defining a simple skin cell as an individual? It too divides, and is, to use the wording of the bill, an “organism that has the DNA of a homo sapien.” So would one be committing murder, killing an individual, when one scratches an itch and destroys skin cells? Why is it that when a woman’s egg is fertilized, the contents of her uterus have the same rights as she does, even though it is physically dependent on her?

You bring up an interesting point when comparing legislation proposed in North Dakota and Maryland. It seems clear that legislators are more likely to present bills that are congruent with constituents that make their voice heard. In North Dakota, the strong anti-choice movement has “made being anti-choice legislator worthwhile.” In Maryland, however, anti-choice movements have not taken hold. Is it possible, therefore, that in states such as North Dakota where anti-choice movements are strong, organizing pro-choice lobbies may serve to counter the effect? I feel that one of the reasons that pro-choice lobbies come into play “only when Roe is challenged” is that they are largely defensive, trying to protect the right to choose. On the other hand, anti-choice movements are on the offensive, trying to limit contraception and the implications of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps if pro-choice organizations lobbied to protect other reproductive freedoms and made their presence felt is states such as North Dakota, some anti-choice sentiment would be shot down.

invalid-0

Is an infant an “individual person [that] is separate, autonomous organism that is capable of surviving on its own” in our society?

invalid-0

A blastocyst is not a person. It is a lump of undifferentiated cells. No nerve, no skin, no bone, no person. Until differentiation creates a sentient being, no person can exist. This law is base solely on religious sensibilities and is therefore unconstitutional.

invalid-0

It should be noted that when the technology develops, it will be illegal to create stem cells from one’s own cell to heal oneself. For example, using cloning techniques, the genetic material removed from a skin cell and inserted into an empty egg would become the “organism” that the right-wingers refer to in their law.

This means that there is essentially no difference between their “organism” and any cell in a person simply because any cell is a potential “organism” as their “orgaism” is a potential person. A real person cannot then use their own cells to create tissue to heal him/herself, ever, if the technology creates a lump of undifferentiated cells, or blastocyst.

These right-wing religious zealots are more concerned with the concept of human being, which a fertilized egg is because it is not a human being yet, than real human beings. This shouldn’t surprise anyone since they have been promoting human overpopulation, creating people who do not exist, at the expense of existing people and non human animals.

If these people were truly “pro-life” they would be: vegetarian, anti-hunting, pro-population control to ensure that existing living things have enough resources. But, they are not. They are simply interested in forcing their religion agenda on everyone.

invalid-0

When does a fertilized egg become a human being?

invalid-0

i’m so ashamed of the immature behavior displayed by the people who voted for the loser.
and, yeah, president obama brought on the tough times – yep, in just one month this country went from golden years to a recession.
get over it – those of us with intelligence had to put up with evil conservatives for EIGHT YEARS. 30 days & the losers are already whining & moaning.

invalid-0

All this back-and-forth arguing about whose rights trump whose and when life begins is simply boring semantics designed to erase women from the issue that wholly affects them.

“More abortions, fewer abortions — what’s the diff? The numbers are irrelevant. Either women are human under the law or we’re not. If we are human, and not just meatsocks for incubating the heirs to patriarchy, the number of abortions performed will reflect exactly the number of abortions required.”

“As several blamers pointed out yesterday, even if you call the body-snatcher a baby, if it is leeching off my personal internal organs, and if having it there displeases me for any reason whatsoever, and the only way to get it out is to kill it, then kill it I will. When another entity appropriates sovereignty over my person, what am I but a slave? As a human being, I object unconditionally to enslavement, for me or for anyone else.

Lonni also suggests, somewhat endearingly, that pregnancy may be avoided by simply declining to “mess around.” While I appreciate Lonni’s sex-ed revelation that that the mystery of life is nearly always predicated by male pronging, it is unreasonable to assume that women, who comprise the sex class, are in a position to opt out of the vocation to which society has subjugated us by default, or even to ensure that birth control is used. Moreover, if we do wanna boink, we should be free to do so without the threat of life-altering, state-imposed punishment looming over us. Why the hell shouldn’t we? Because we aren’t as human as men?

According to Lonni’s reasoning we aren’t. Although she regards all clumps of reproductive matter as “individuals” — by which she means sovereign entities — she must also believe that at some point, after they are brought to term and become female humans, their individuality necessarily evaporates in order for them to assume lives as meatsock slaves. Following this logic, women are really only fully human until we are born.

All very true. Women without access to contraception and abortion are nothing more than slaves.

invalid-0

Pro-lifers who try to make their case on logic alone may be more polite than the rabid variety, but ultimately miss the point just the same. Which is that the discussion comes down to women, and whether or not society considers them fit to control their own reproductive state.

Of course, it floors me to see them argue, in 2009, that such control should be denied even when the fetus is a single-cell fertilized egg. How low must one’s regard for a human being’s desires, health, and free will be when all that is cast aside for the sake of a single cell? It’s one step removed from the Monty Python Every sperm is sacred skit, and yet bills are working their way through real-world, present-day legislatures that would enact this lunacy. It’s like they’re doing their damndest to prove that The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t unrealistic hyperbole!

invalid-0

What should not be sacrificed for women?

invalid-0

Yes, precisely, Anonymous 2:12. It pains me so much that in an 80-plus comment thread, I am the only one who has pointed out that women are not mindless gestation automatons, and what effects them invariably effects all of society. I mean, shouldn’t that be the FIRST thing anyone thinks when discussing abortion?

That we invisiblise women’s experiences entirely from the discourse when it’s something that effects them wholly (except when it’s convenient to blame them in some way) is a symptom of the patriarchal disease.

I’m hoping for the sake of women everywhere that Margaret Atwood remains a science fiction writer, and doesn’t become a prophet of what is to come.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

All this back-and-forth arguing about whose rights trump whose and when life begins is simply boring semantics designed to erase women from the issue that wholly affects them.
Hardly. I could just as easily say this:
All this shouting about women becoming baby making slaves is simply inflammatory rhetoric designed to erase babies from the issue that wholly affects them.
We need “boring semantics”, or an exercise of reason to ascertain what is just, how else has humankind ever tackled the troubling issues that confront us? Were Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas’ debates over slavery just boring semantics or an honest effort to look at a problem and decide the best course of action.
Twisty is right in that the numbers of abortions do not have any bearings on whether it is a just procedure. Twisty right in when he or she states that either women are human or they are not, it cannot be both, and clearly they are and entitled to full human rights. Obviously women are human, the question is, is the fetus human. After all, abortion has a greater affect on the fetus than the woman (note that I am not saying that abortion has no affect on the woman). In fact, if an abortion ends up having a greater affect on the woman than on the fetus, the doctor could find himself in court.“As several blamers pointed out yesterday, even if you call the body-snatcher a baby, if it is leeching off my personal internal organs, and if having it there displeases me for any reason whatsoever, and the only way to get it out is to kill it, then kill it I will. When another entity appropriates sovereignty over my person, what am I but a slave?
I thought this was just boring semantics? I have already refuted this in earlier posts, see my replies to ahunt and Kay. I’ll give you a quick synopsis: By granting the fetus equal rights, you have granted it the right to bodily autonomy which you would invoke against the fetus. However, in procuring an abortion, you would violate its bodily autonomy as well as every other right, including the foundational right to life by which we receive all other rights. Therefore abortion is the greater violation of human rights, and must be prohibited for the sake of justice.
Furthermore, since the fetus did not force itself into the mother’s womb, and it was the direct action of the mother and father that put it there, it is the mother and the father who are responsible for any affects of those actions, and therefore punishment cannot justly be carried out against the fetus.“As a human being, I object unconditionally to enslavement, for me or for anyone else.”
Well, since you agreed for the sake of this argument that the fetus is a human being, it has the right to freedom that you do. Therefore, it would hardly be just to kill it because it “displeases you for any reason whatsoever.” That sounds like the worst kind of enslavement to me. “While I appreciate Lonni’s sex-ed revelation that that the mystery of life is nearly always predicated by male pronging, it is unreasonable to assume that women, who comprise the sex class, are in a position to opt out of the vocation to which society has subjugated us by default, or even to ensure that birth control is used.”
I want to be sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that women can’t say no to sex, and that sex is the only vocation that society sees fit for a woman?Moreover, if we do wanna boink, we should be free to do so without the threat of life-altering, state-imposed punishment looming over us. Why the hell shouldn’t we? Because we aren’t as human as men?
Whether you are male or female, no one can do anything about the fact that only females get pregnant, and that sex often makes babies, even if you use contraception or are sterilized. Killing other human beings is not a justifiable way of escaping the consequences of your own actions. Also, I would argue that the ability of males to “prong” without ever getting pregnant isn’t what makes them human, it’s not even what makes them male. In fact, the indulgence of this ability isn’t usually a good thing, and reduces the humanity of the man and whoever he is “pronging” to merely sexual entities. Clearly, human beings are much more than that.“According to Lonni’s reasoning we aren’t. Although she regards all clumps of reproductive matter as “individuals” — by which she means sovereign entities — she must also believe that at some point, after they are brought to term and become female humans, their individuality necessarily evaporates in order for them to assume lives as meatsock slaves. Following this logic, women are really only fully human until we are born.”
Sovereign doesn’t mean that you are free to do whatever you want whenever you want, or that you are free from being responsible for the direct results of your own actions. You cannot be fully human without considering how your actions affect the human beings around you
If anything, the patriarchal problem I see is that we let males off the hook too easily when making them responsible to their fatherhood.

invalid-0

Good grief, Paul. Could you miss the point any more? If you give a fetus rights, it automatically rescinds the woman’s rights since she now cannot do anything that may harm or endanger that fetus, whether she wants the damn thing or not. Effectively, she’s a slave, and a slave who gets told she’s basically worth less than a embryo, and gets a bunch of moralistic finger-wagging to go with it. That is the sort of attitude which, when implemented, (as it has been in the past and is happening right now) leads to teams of people employed to check women’s vaginas for “evidence” of abortion in hospitals, jail sentences for seeking abortion, ectopic pregnancies left unaborted until they are life-threatening, re-victimization of rape and incest victims and the government treating it’s women like goddamned cattle.

Obviously women are human, the question is, is the fetus human. After all, abortion has a greater affect on the fetus than the woman (note that I am not saying that abortion has no affect on the woman). In fact, if an abortion ends up having a greater affect on the woman than on the fetus, the doctor could find himself in court.

What in the name of Rick Astley does clinical negligence and physician incompetence have to do with whether society considers women smart enough to make their own decisions about pregnancy? These things are apples and oranges, Paul. I find it darkly humorous that you mention that, actually. Outlawing abortion would make a lot more women affected by abortion as they resort to back-alley butchers just so they can have control over their uteri. You’re asking the wrong question, anyway. A fetus is human, on a cellular level, just like dandruff is. The question you should be asking is: is it a person? To which I answer no, because that would mean reproductive enslavement for half the human race.

By granting the fetus equal rights, you have granted it the right to bodily autonomy which you would invoke against the fetus. However, in procuring an abortion, you would violate its bodily autonomy as well as every other right, including the foundational right to life by which we receive all other rights. Therefore abortion is the greater violation of human rights, and must be prohibited for the sake of justice.

Where did I personally agree that a fetus has equal rights? I find that position absurd. Giving a fetus rights automatically invalidates the woman’s since she becomes nothing but it’s incubator (not equal rights, because it would only be equal to a man, since he doesn’t have to compromise his to give to the fetus). Justice for whom, exactly? Justice for men who want to control women?

Well, since you agreed for the sake of this argument that the fetus is a human being, it has the right to freedom that you do. Therefore, it would hardly be just to kill it because it “displeases you for any reason whatsoever.” That sounds like the worst kind of enslavement to me.

What “right to freedom”? I am a woman of childbearing age. According to you, I have no right to freedom as soon as a man ejaculates and that happens to fertilize a gamete. Sorry to be crude, but you’re arguing from nothing. I cannot have a right patriarchs have decided I do not deserve, because I a fertile female. I am already a slave, but something that doesn’t know what slavery is, and has no way of comprehending anything until a few years after I’ve been forced to shove it out of my cunt has it worse? Give me a break.

I want to be sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that women can’t say no to sex, and that sex is the only vocation that society sees fit for a woman?

Which part of “we are the sex class and we live in a patriarchy” did you did you fail to comprehend?

Whether you are male or female, no one can do anything about the fact that only females get pregnant, and that sex often makes babies, even if you use contraception or are sterilized.

I know that, I’m not stupid. What you do not answer is why women should be held to ransom by men, by sex, and by their ability to get pregnant.

Furthermore, since the fetus did not force itself into the mother’s womb, and it was the direct action of the mother and father that put it there, it is the mother and the father who are responsible for any affects of those actions, and therefore punishment cannot justly be carried out against the fetus.

But “punishment” in the form of forced birth and childrearing is a-okay for the woman? That says volumes about you.

Also, I would argue that the ability of males to “prong” without ever getting pregnant isn’t what makes them human, it’s not even what makes them male. In fact, the indulgence of this ability isn’t usually a good thing, and reduces the humanity of the man and whoever he is “pronging” to merely sexual entities.

So close, yet so far. It’s a pity you don’t extend that humanity to women, who are universally recognised as the sex-and-baby-making class. Part of combating that is NOT positing a fucking fetus as worth more than a woman, and forcing her to give birth, regardless of her wishes. Because that makes women reproductive slaves, thereby making them the sex-and-baby class. Got it?

Sovereign doesn’t mean that you are free to do whatever you want whenever you want, or that you are free from being responsible for the direct results of your own actions. You cannot be fully human without considering how your actions affect the human beings around you

In your world, there is only one acceptable outcome for pregnancy, and that is to give birth. You don’t view abortion as taking responsibility and considering what is best for you and your loved ones, rather as a way OUT of responsibility and accepting the female’s rightful punishment for having had sex. You’ve come out and said it. We are not fully human unless we are doing what you want, and since there is only one way for an unintentionally pregnant woman to BE responsible in your world and every sperm is sacred, then we’ll never be human if people like you are defining what makes us “real”. That you feel so entitled to decide what humanity and responsibility are for women is very telling of the depth of your misogyny and male privilege.

If anything, the patriarchal problem I see is that we let males off the hook too easily when making them responsible to their fatherhood.

Oh? So the only things you’d have males be responsible for are babies? Gee, how hard it must be to value women only when they are carrying your spawn. How difficult it must be to be a real human.

Only women can get pregnant. Which is why they need abortion rights. Else they are slaves. Are we clear now? I’m becoming tired of arguing with people who just don’t get it. A pregnancy is unimportant unless the woman carrying it decides it is. Why do I believe that? It’s because I don’t think women are idiots who cannot make their own decisions to have children or not. You are so soaked in rosy imagery of pwecious widdle babies (the OUTCOME of a woman deciding her pregnancy is important) that you’ve lost sight of what putting your kind of corkscrew thinking into practice actually means for women and girls.

You obviously think women are innately stupid, immoral, and unfit to decide if and when they bring babies into the world and they need herding into forced birth or they’d never choose it for themselves at a time that suits them, and the white baby supply would run out. Come back and tell me we need forced birth when there’s not six billion mouths on the planet and climbing. I’m done here.

invalid-0

Can we sacrifice infants for women’s sake?

invalid-0

I have a – if it were medically possible – question.

Would the right to lifers be satisfied if an embryo or fetus could be removed and implanted into a surrogate, or if a surrogate couldn’t be found, into an artificial womb and finished growing in a lab?

At birth if could be adopted out or placed into an orphanage.

After all, it seems it would be a reasonable alternative if all they are concerned with is the continuation of the fetus’ life and not controlling a woman’s reproductive life.

I feel this would be largely acceptable to the pro-choice crowd since the woman still gets to choose if she wants to be pregnant.

invalid-0

And now women don’t have a right to control their genetic information either? What exactly do we suppose women should have a right to do? Somebody remind me.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Good grief, Paul. Could you miss the point any more?

Actually I think I have decent grasp of it. Tell me if I am off base: Women, like men, should be able to gratify their sexual desires and not have to suffer the slavery of forced pregnancy as a result. Abortion is therefore necessary in the event that contraception fails. Granting rights to the fetus puts women under the yoke of men and the unborn since the men are free to enjoy their passions without consequence while women will be forced to carry the fetal slavedriver to term anytime she becomes pregnant.
Isn’t that pretty much it?

If you give a fetus rights, it automatically rescinds the woman’s rights since she now cannot do anything that may harm or endanger that fetus,

Actually, this is false. If you give a fetus rights, it affects what you can do to the fetus. It does not rescind the rights of the mother. However, we now have two people who’s rights are involved, and therefore both must be considered equally, and the rights of each must be balanced against the rights of the other. These are basic principles of fairness and justice.

whether she wants the damn thing or not.

Here you are confusing the mother’s rights with the right to do whatever you want without regard for the consequences. I stated earlier that it cannot be argued against that only women get pregnant, and that sex can result in pregnancy even when contraception is used or when sterilization has been performed, and you agreed. This proves that responsibility for the pregnancy and the existence of the fetus lies with the mother and the father, since they engaged in an activity where pregnancy is a known outcome. I’ll repeat what I said to ahunt, consenting to sex but not consenting to pregnancy is like consenting to walking a tight rope but not consenting to falling off. It can happen, and everyone knows it.
To argue that forcing a woman to carry her child to term is violating her rights is like saying that forcing someone who caused an accident on the freeway to pay for the damages to the other persons car is violating their rights. If a woman has sex, there is a chance she & her partner will create a fetus. The fetus doesn’t force itself upon her, she & her partner creates it.
We all must be held responsible for our actions, otherwise we are free to violate the rights of others with impunity.

What in the name of Rick Astley does clinical negligence and physician incompetence have to do with whether society considers women smart enough to make their own decisions about pregnancy?

Nothing.
I brought up the point to illustrate that it is the fetus that is aborted, and not the mother. Therefore, we ought to be discussing what the fetus is. Certainly, we ought to be discussing the affects on the mother as well. I have never said that we should not, despite what you imply. However, since action is taken to kill the fetus, we ought to know whether it is human or not. As I have said countless time in all my responses to this article, this is my biggest critique of the pro-choice movement. They never explore the question of the personhood of the fetus, the very thing that is being aborted. So I ask you, when does a zyg/emb/fetus/baby get human rights?

You’re asking the wrong question, anyway.

I agree, I should have said “is the fetus a human person”. However, if you actually read any of my previous posts, you would be well aware that that is indeed what I am asking.

A fetus is human, on a cellular level, just like dandruff is.

This statement is completely erroneous in multiple ways, here are a few. First of all, dandruff is nothing more than a collection of skin cells. The fetus contains a myriad of different cells types all working together to sustain it’s life. Secondly, the skin cells that make up the dandruff are dead. The fetus is alive. Also, the DNA inside the skin cells and the DNA inside the fetus are different. The body functions of the fetus do not operate under the control of the mother, the skin cells did (when they were alive). The dead skin cells do not develop into children or adults. I could go on and on.

The question you should be asking is: is it a person? To which I answer no, because that would mean reproductive enslavement for half the human race.

Again, if you read my posts, I have beenbegging people to answer that very question.
Your answer is completely illogical. The implications of the answer to any question has no bearing on what the answer actually is. Lets say I adopted a boy from Ethiopia, and they didn’t keep a birth record of him, but he looks around 2-3 years of age. I would love to be able to say that he is not two years old because that would mean I have to deal with the terrible twos. However, my speculation about the implications of having a two year old boy can in no way accurately determine his age. To do that, we have to look at the boy himself. This is why it is so important that we talk about whether or not the fetus has human rights. Just because it seems like boring semantics to you doesn’t mean it isn’t at the heart of the debate.

Which part of “we are the sex class and we live in a patriarchy” did you did you fail to comprehend?

So men are in essence demoting women from full fledged citizens to sex slaves and babymakers then? And this is why women can’t avoid sex, because men will force it on them and may not allow them to use contraception? Again, I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

I know that, I’m not stupid. What you do not answer is why women should be held to ransom by men, by sex, and by their ability to get pregnant.

I can see that you are not stupid, and I never said you were. I am just making a statement we can both agree upon to help me make a point. Women should not be held ransom by men, they cannot be held ransom by sex or their ability to get pregnant since they willingly engage in sex knowing they could become pregnant, but they can (along with the father) be held responsible for the consequences.

But “punishment” in the form of forced birth and childrearing is a-okay for the woman? That says volumes about you.

Again, there is a difference between being punished and taking responsibility for your own actions. No one is forcing childrearing, give the child up for adoption. And don’t claim that you know volumes about anyone who exchange words with over the internet.

So close, yet so far. It’s a pity you don’t extend that humanity to women, who are universally recognised as the sex-and-baby-making class.

I don’t recognize women as a sex-and-baby-making class, and I do extend that humanity to all women, even those in the womb.

Part of combating that is NOT positing a fucking fetus as worth more than a woman,

The fetus is not worth more than the woman, they have equal worth. I have never said otherwise.

and forcing her to give birth, regardless of her wishes. Because that makes women reproductive slaves, thereby making them the sex-and-baby class. Got it?

We’ve been over this. No one is free from responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, especially if the life of another human being is at stake. This is why we must explore whether or not the fetus has human rights. If it does have rights, abortion is not justified. If it does not have rights, abortion should not be limited.

In your world, there is only one acceptable outcome for pregnancy, and that is to give birth.

Not true, if the right to life of both the mother and the fetus are at risk, such as ectopic pregnancy, I certainly wouldn’t think trying to give birth to that child would be acceptable. The mother and the child have equal rights.

You don’t view abortion as taking responsibility and considering what is best for you and your loved ones, rather as a way OUT of responsibility

I can see how abortion would seem to be responsible regarding other family members, but if the fetus has human rights, it is hardly responsible towards the fetus. If our family got in a really tough situation financially or medically or socially, and I felt that it would help out tremendously if we had one less child, I cannot responsibly kill one of my children to help the rest of us out of that situation. Again, it all comes down to whether or not the fetus has rights. Also, if the mother and father willingly and knowingly engaged in an action that could result in pregnancy while knowing that they could not handle that result, they’ve already acted irresponsibly. I know how the members of the “sex class” that I know would behave, they wouldn’t have sex, and they wouldn’t consider themselves slaves because of it.

and accepting the female’s rightful punishment for having had sex. You’ve come out and said it.

Actually, I never said that pregnancy was punishment for sex, it is simply the occasional consequences of sex. Consequences are not necessarily punishments.

We are not fully human unless we are doing what you want, and since there is only one way for an unintentionally pregnant woman to BE responsible in your world and every sperm is sacred, then we’ll never be human if people like you are defining what makes us “real”

I never said I want to define what makes you real, or that you should come to me to get your actions approved and therefore be fully human. Rather, what I have been saying since my very first post on this topic is that we should all be discussing whether or not the fetus has human rights, and let that knowledge determine a course of action that is just.

That you feel so entitled to decide what humanity and responsibility are for women is very telling of the depth of your misogyny and male privilege.

Again, I am not entitled to decide any of these things, I have been calling for a discussion amongst all of us regarding the nature of the fetus and what rights it has and when it gets them, so we may act justly when we do something to it and the mother.
Furthermore, by accusing me of misogyny you have proven the point that I made in my first post. You avoid discussion of the rights of the fetus at all costs, and finally resort to ad hominem attacks.

Oh? So the only things you’d have males be responsible for are babies? Gee, how hard it must be to value women only when they are carrying your spawn. How difficult it must be to be a real human.

Of course that isn’t the only thing they should be responsible for. We are all responsible for any action that we take, especially when it affects another.

Only women can get pregnant. Which is why they need abortion rights. Else they are slaves. Are we clear now?

No, we aren’t clear. And we will never be clear until we discuss what the rights of the fetus are. If it is human, you cannot kill it even if (as you quoted) “having it there displeases me for any reason whatsoever”

I’m becoming tired of arguing with people who just don’t get it. A pregnancy is unimportant unless the woman carrying it decides it is. Why do I believe that? It’s because I don’t think women are idiots who cannot make their own decisions to have children or not.

This is completely illogical. If human rights are bestowed upon us whenever our mothers decide to bestow them regardless of our own nature, infanticide becomes defensible. Whether or not a woman wants a child has no bearing on what that child is. I don’t think women are idiots either, whether they’ve had an abortion or not.

You are so soaked in rosy imagery of pwecious widdle babies (the OUTCOME of a woman deciding her pregnancy is important) that you’ve lost sight of what putting your kind of corkscrew thinking into practice actually means for women and girls.

Who said I have rosy imagery of “pwecious widdle babies”? Can you point out to me where I have written something that would suggest that? I have thought very much about what my thinking actually means for women and girls, thats part of the reason I comment on this blog, to get viewpoints different than mine so I can try to see the issue more clearly.

You obviously think women are innately stupid, immoral, and unfit to decide if and when they bring babies into the world and they need herding into forced birth or they’d never choose it for themselves at a time that suits them, and the white baby supply would run out. Come back and tell me we need forced birth when there’s not six billion mouths on the planet and climbing. I’m done here.

You have stated that I think women are innately stupid, which I never stated. You have stated that I think women are immoral, which I have never stated. You have stated that I think they are unfit to decide whether or not to bear children, which I have never stated. You have stated that I think women would never choose to bear a child to term and give birth if not forced to, which I have never stated. You have stated that I think that abortion is going to wipe out the white baby supply, which I have never stated.
You say that I am blinded by “rosy imagery of pwecious widdle babies”. On the contrary, I think you have proven that you are blinded by cynical imagery of pro-life white men who would love nothing more than to see all women grouped into a harem for the purposes of our own sexual pleasures and the bearing of our all white progeny because we believe the are stupid and deviant.
Come back when you can actually respond to my arguments by showing me where they are wrong, instead of putting words in my mouth and claiming I am a misogynist.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

At first blush, it seems like it would be a reasonable solution. This would still have to accompany the overturning of Roe v Wade and require State abortion bans. It’s not that helpful in solving the abortion debate if abortion is still permitted.

invalid-0

Ectopic pregnancy is also a risk and possible consequence of having sex…just as a healthy pregnancy or any number of other complications.

invalid-0

If such a procedure were available, and as long as the American Taliban lays off everyone who doesn’t hold the same religious beliefs and just keeps their own counsel when it comes to contraception and lets other men and WOMEN, keep theirs, I don’t have a problem with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, the Christians can’t be trusted.

But, when a woman chooses to keep a fetus and say six months down the road she has a medical problem and it’s her life or the fetus, she still must be entitled to choose her life over the fetus, no ifs, buts, or cry babies from the right. It’s kind of like which came first, the chicken or the egg? She is a sentient being, alive and with hopes dreams and aspirations. The fetus is only a possibility in waiting.

And by the way, ‘an interesting possibility’ is not a good answer. I threw out a hypothetical medical possibility. You could of answered with a hypothetical ‘when R v.W is overturned, yes, or no, a woman must bear the fetus to term and state your reasons.

The ambiguity of your answer leaves me with suspicions that control over a woman’s uterus and her life is more central to the agenda and abolishing abortion is just the first step.

invalid-0

Ms. Arnold seems to address the prenatal life concern. Mr. Paul seems concerned that abortion’s availability goes against the prenatal life concern.

I see nothing but evil in forcing someone to give birth to a child when they do not want to. Nobody is obliged to breed, or breed to give it up to someone else or the state because the law, the pro-life movement, or some other third party has decided that they are the only options anyone can take. OR because they broke some unwritten rule when they engaged in sex and now they must birth to make up for that. Clean from the unclean, etc. It’s bullshit. I do not care – as I have previously stated – to argue endlessly about fetal “rights” since it is nothing but a logical strawman and more bullshit to wade through, for reasons that should be obvious. If it is not, let me explain: I trust women and men to make their own decisions whether abortion, adoption or parenting is right for them.

Abortion/adoption/parenting are options the people involved can take to deal with the pregnancy in the way they see fit in their nuanced lives and situations. I trust people to make their own decisions, even if they turn out to regret that choice later. That is the essence of pro-choice, and of being mature. They have the freedom TO, not the freedom FROM. The way you say women seeking abortion are not being “responsible towards the fetus” is cold and sexist. They have likely weighed up everything in their decision and decided that it is their best interest, their family/partner/life/career/existing children/financial situation/whatever’s best interest not to continue the pregnancy.

The options women have now (though they could be improved; are you listening, North Dakota?) ARE ways of taking responsibility, whether you find it fitting to your beliefs is irrelevant.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

I see nothing but evil in forcing someone to give birth to a child when they do not want to.

That is because you only look at the rights of the mother and refuse to examine whether or not the fetus has any rights. If the fetus does not have rights, then you are correct, we should abort as necessary. But if it does, then literally tearing it limb from limb is evil.

Nobody is obliged to breed, or breed to give it up to someone else or the state because the law, the pro-life movement, or some other third party has decided that they are the only options anyone can take.

You are right. No one should just arbitrarily decide what the proper course of action is when discussing abortion. We should have a serious debate about the scientific, philosophical, moral, legal and practical facets of the issue.

OR because they broke some unwritten rule when they engaged in sex and now they must birth to make up for that. Clean from the unclean, etc. It’s bullshit.

When did I ever say that people should birth to make up for the sex they had… as if the sex was necessarily bad? Just because sex has consequences doesn’t make it bad. And just because the sex was good doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have consequences, or that we should be free from our responsibility from these consequences.

I do not care – as I have previously stated – to argue endlessly about fetal “rights” since it is nothing but a logical strawman and more bullshit to wade through, for reasons that should be obvious. If it is not, let me explain: I trust women and men to make their own decisions whether abortion, adoption or parenting is right for them.

Can you actually explain to me how your trust for men and women to make their own decisions is an obvious reason that fetal rights is a logical strawman against abortion? You may trust that men and women make their own decisions regarding whether parenting/adoption/abortion is right for them, and fetal rights may be a strawman in the abortion debate, but neither one has any bearing on the other.
Furthermore, lets discuss what a strawman argument really is. You would state your position about something: “We should have creampuffs available in the cafeteria everyday.” Then I would introduce the strawman by saying “If all we ever ate were creampuffs everyday we would really damage our health.” What the stawman is is a misrepresentation of your argument. You never said that all we should eat are creampuffs, only that they should be available. By changing what you said into something you did not, I made the argument easier for me to refute.
However, I have not misrepresented your argument. Quite the opposite, I have conceded multiple times throughout this whole discussion with everyone that if the fetus does NOT have rights, we should be free to abort as necessary.
What I HAVE done, is challenge your premise that abortion is an issue of woman’s or parents rights ONLY. Challenging the premise of an argument is a completely legitimate way of refuting an argument, and in now way equal to a strawman argument.So you can call it a strawman if you want to, but in reality you are just refusing to defend a key premise of your agrument.

Abortion/adoption/parenting are options the people involved can take to deal with the pregnancy in the way they see fit in their nuanced lives and situations. I trust people to make their own decisions, even if they turn out to regret that choice later. That is the essence of pro-choice, and of being mature.

So you feel that any decision that the people involved with the unintended pregnancy make is justifiable? If so, then why would it be wrong for the father to shoot the mother? Or how about if the mother just shot the other child she currently had since she could only afford one child?

They have the freedom TO, not the freedom FROM.

You are saying they have the freedom to act responsibly, not the freedom from responsible action, right? How is it responsible to dismember something that is living, human, and not thoroughly discuss whether it has the same human rights that every other living human has?

The way you say women seeking abortion are not being “responsible towards the fetus” is cold and sexist. They have likely weighed up everything in their decision and decided that it is their best interest, their family/partner/life/career/existing children/financial situation/whatever’s best interest not to continue the pregnancy.

Again with the ad hominem attacks? I don’t doubt that women often think long and hard about whether abortion is a good choice for them, nor do I think that any woman who has had an abortion is a bad person, nor do I think all women just make rash judgements devoid of thought. Again, I would refer you back to my original post in reply to Kay’s article. You have failed to rationally defend a key premise in your argument, and resort to personal attacks to discredit me instead of discrediting what I am actually saying.
You inadvertently point out exactly what I am saying here, though. You said that anyone considering abortion thinks about what is in their “family/partner/life/career/existing children/financial situation/whatever’s best interest”, but you left out any consideration of the nature of the life that they are ending. To consciously ignore this factor is irresponsible. Now, some ask their doctor who’ll tell them “It’s nothing but some tissue” (Sheldon Turkish to Rose Acuna in 1996), in which case they were lied to, and not irresponsible. Others are simply unaware of the existence of biological life, and others are coerced into getting an abortion. So, I am not arguing that all women are irresponsible, but I am arguing that advocating for abortion rights or procuring an abortion while consciously ignoring the nature of what is being aborted is irresponsible.

The options women have now (though they could be improved; are you listening, North Dakota?) ARE ways of taking responsibility, whether you find it fitting to your beliefs is irrelevant.

Again, I am not arguing that my beliefs should have the final say in the matter. I am arguing that the premise that abortion involves ONLY the rights of the mother is faulty, and that the fetus may have rights, and that we should thoroughly, publicly, examine the cases for the existence or nonexistence of these rights.

invalid-0

Paul, most of us gave up arguing with you when you insisted you were advocating that fertilized eggs enjoyed the same rights of women while simultaneously arguing that women give up their rights (freedoms) the second the sperm hits the ova.

You cannot have it both ways…

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

If such a procedure were available, and as long as the American Taliban lays off everyone who doesn’t hold the same religious beliefs and just keeps their own counsel when it comes to contraception and lets other men and WOMEN, keep theirs, I don’t have a problem with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, the Christians can’t be trusted.

I have no problem with contraception that isn’t abortifacient. The problem is, we don’t really know if those contraceptive methods that list changing the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation as a possible method of action actually prevent implantation or not. If the pill is shown not to interfere with implantation, then I think its perfectly acceptable for couple to use their judgment on its use, and certainly non-abortifacient measures would be perfectly acceptable. My objection isn’t to allowing people to make their own decision about the use of contraception, but I do object to ending a human life that has already begun.

But, when a woman chooses to keep a fetus and say six months down the road she has a medical problem and it’s her life or the fetus, she still must be entitled to choose her life over the fetus, no ifs, buts, or cry babies from the right. It’s kind of like which came first, the chicken or the egg? She is a sentient being, alive and with hopes dreams and aspirations.

If we’ve got an ectopic pregnancy or some similar situation, then yes, we should save the life of the mother. However, if the situation affords any attempt to save both lives, we must make every reasonable attempt to save both.

The fetus is only a possibility in waiting.

A possibility of what waiting for what? The appearance of this hypothetical procedure would in no way lessen the need to determine the rights of the fetus. Embryonic stem cell research would not be affected by this procedure, and there is a lot of “possibility in waiting” getting destroyed without thought about what rights they may have.

And by the way, ‘an interesting possibility’ is not a good answer. I threw out a hypothetical medical possibility. You could of answered with a hypothetical ‘when R v.W is overturned, yes, or no, a woman must bear the fetus to term and state your reasons.
The ambiguity of your answer leaves me with suspicions that control over a woman’s uterus and her life is more central to the agenda and abolishing abortion is just the first step.

My answer was ambiguous for several reasons, which I will explain. Not one of them had anything to do with the bizarre idea that I would somehow enjoy having control over every uterus in the world. No thank you.
The first reason was this, it was late, and I needed to get to bed, and therefore didn’t have the time to post a thoroughly thought out answer.
The second reason was that I suspected that the device would be used as a way to declare the issue of the rights of unborn as irrelevant, but I wasn’t sure if that’s what you intended or not.
The third reason had to do with what the appropriate response would be in the time before such a device was readily available to the public; it wouldn’t be consistent to just sit back and let a few thousand more children die every day while we wait for the “release” date.

invalid-0

However, if the situation affords any attempt to save both lives, we must make every reasonable attempt to save both.
.
Ah… quantity over quality, eh?

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Let me make this clear, again. I am not saying the fetus has superior rights over the mother. I also conceded many times that if the fetus has no rights than we should abort as necessary. Whenever you say I am granting superior rights to the fetus, you are misrepresenting my argument and setting up a strawman. I did say that EVERYONE at times must sacrifice freedoms due to the existence of equal human rights in the people around us. This in no way means that human rights are revoked when ever I have to stop at a stop sign, as freedom and rights are not the same thing. It means that my freedom is limited by the rights of those around me. Both persons rights must be weighed against each other when they interfere with each other. This is the whole idea behind justice.
On the 2/25 at 2:18 am I said:

If the the fetus is a person, than it has rights equal to the mother. If the mother doesn’t wish to be pregnant because it infringes upon her liberty, we must remember that an abortion would violate the fetus’ right to life. Since the mother’s right to liberty is equal to the fetus’ right to liberty, and the mother’s right to life is equal to the fetus’ right to life, and there is no escaping the fact that either the mother or the fetus will have their rights infringed upon, we must look which person will have their most foundational right violated, which would be the fetus in the case of the abortion. Therefore, the abortion is unjustified from civil rights point of view.
I think this is where you and I are missing each other here. You see, I am not saying that the fetus has a more superior set of rights than the mother has. Rather, I am saying that some rights are superior to other rights. Lets take the big three as stated in the Dec. of Ind: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We all have a right to the pursuit of happiness, yet we cannot pursue happiness if we have no liberty to act on our will. Therefore, I cannot violate your right to liberty by making you a slave so that I can work my plantation to pursue happiness. We all have a right to liberty, yet we cannot act on our will if we are dead. Therefore, I cannot violate your right to life by running you over with my car just because you happened to be in the middle of the road I was on, and I didn’t want to stop because I would then be late for work. The right to pursue happiness is subject to the superior right to liberty, and the right to liberty is subject to the superior right to life. That’s why I said that the a woman may get chemotherapy in Dr. Dredd’s example even if it possibly harms or kills the fetus, because two people with equal rights have equally foundational rights at stake, the right to their own life; it is a wash.

You never replied to any of this. Now, if you wish to refute my argument that this is not equal rights, than show me where my reasoning is faulty.
Do not, however, just repeat your claim and tell me I can’t have it both ways.

invalid-0

I did say that EVERYONE at times must sacrifice freedoms due to the existence of equal human rights in the people around us.

Examples please.

invalid-0

Both drivers actually took the risk of driving with the chance that they could be involved in an accident.

One of them was slavery. Your right to pursue happiness (as stated in the Dec. of Ind. on a plantation cannot come at the expense of someelse’s right to liberty. Or, your right to own property (as stated in the Constitution) cannot come at the expense to another’s right to liberty.

invalid-0

What makes an ectopic pregnancy less human and deserving of protection?

invalid-0

You can kill a child to get medical treatment? What happened to the childs right to be protected under self-defense laws? Especially since the woman has decided to risk her own life and is considered responsible for the pregnancy?

invalid-0

someone else has liberties over my property?

invalid-0

someone else has liberties over my property?
Yah…I’m not getting it either…no one’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness overrides my right to my own possessions.

Definitely not following.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Yah…I’m not getting it either…no one’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness overrides my right to my own possessions.
Definitely not following.

So if you owned a slave, that slave’s right to life and liberty wouldn’t override your right to own that slave?

invalid-0

You are correct, no one can commandeer another’s body. It is a moot point, however, because the fetus didn’t commandeer the mother’s womb. How did the fetus get in the womb? It didn’t secretly crawl through a nostril while the mother was sleeping. It didn’t use a gun to force a doctor to surgically place it in the womb. The fetus had nothing to do with its attachment to the mother. The mother put the fetus in the womb. Whether it was intentional or not, the mother is responsible for the attachment of her child to her.

You still are dodging the issue here. I am in no way obligated to giving my children the use of my body (through blood or organ donation or any other means) to keep them alive, even if it makes me an asshole not to do it. And even if I originally say okay and let my born children be hooked up to me for life support, I am allowed to rescind that permission at any time, even if that removal results in the death of my children, even though I had sex and gave birth to them and agreed to it. I am still allowed to change my mind about the use of my body. It may make me a horrible mother, an immoral person, and an asshole, but it is still allowed.

So I fail to see why, even if I consented to sex that resulted in pregnancy, I am not allowed to change my mind about the use of my body in that one instance only, when it is perfectly legal to do so in every other instance, even if it results in the death of someone else, even if it results in the death of my own born children.

And as an aside, if you want to know why some of us get a bit testy and rude during these discussions, it is because it directly affects us as women. You’re a man and you don’t really have any stake in this. You may very well be sincere in your love for the almighty fetus, but you don’t’ have to deal with the reality that your body and your authority over your own body can be taken away at the whim of someone else. Women have to deal with that reality every second of every day of our lives, from birth to death. So yeah, it’s just a bit personal for a lot of us.

invalid-0

Why is the woman responsible for the pregnancy?

invalid-0

So much for the hierarchy of rights, eh? I guess that’s only reserved for fetuses and only when the womans bodily integrity is used…all others wanting their rights to be equally protected to this extent be damned.

invalid-0

An ectopic pregnancy cannot be carried to term. It is life-threatening and requires surgery. If you would rather see women die than get life-saving surgery, just say so.

invalid-0

For people who believe that fetal life is valuable in its own right, its an open question.

invalid-0

For people who believe that fetal life is valuable in its own right, its an open question.
Which begs the question…is it really about the “life” of the clearly doomed embryo…or is it about punishing women for having sex? As it happens…happily married women desiring pregnancy also are known to experience ectopic pregnancy.

invalid-0

Birth (or “carried to term”) is an insignificant factor in the valuation of human life to them.

invalid-0

Not following. Everybody has the right to own property. No one has the right to use another person’s body against the will of the person.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Not following. Everybody has the right to own property. No one has the right to use another person’s body against the will of the person.

You forgot the most fundamental right: No one has the right to take another innocent person’s life.
Did you actually read this? It’s all in there. Please, if you think any of this is unfounded or faulty reasoning, point it out to me. I have no illusions of infallibility.

If the the fetus is a person, than it has rights equal to the mother. If the mother doesn’t wish to be pregnant because it infringes upon her liberty, we must remember that an abortion would violate the fetus’ right to life. Since the mother’s right to liberty is equal to the fetus’ right to liberty, and the mother’s right to life is equal to the fetus’ right to life, and there is no escaping the fact that either the mother or the fetus will have their rights infringed upon, we must look which person will have their most foundational right violated, which would be the fetus in the case of the abortion. Therefore, the abortion is unjustified from civil rights point of view.
I think this is where you and I are missing each other here. You see, I am not saying that the fetus has a more superior set of rights than the mother has. Rather, I am saying that some rights are superior to other rights. Lets take the big three as stated in the Dec. of Ind: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We all have a right to the pursuit of happiness, yet we cannot pursue happiness if we have no liberty to act on our will. Therefore, I cannot violate your right to liberty by making you a slave so that I can work my plantation to pursue happiness. We all have a right to liberty, yet we cannot act on our will if we are dead. Therefore, I cannot violate your right to life by running you over with my car just because you happened to be in the middle of the road I was on, and I didn’t want to stop because I would then be late for work. The right to pursue happiness is subject to the superior right to liberty, and the right to liberty is subject to the superior right to life. That’s why I said that the a woman may get chemotherapy in Dr. Dredd’s example even if it possibly harms or kills the fetus, because two people with equal rights have equally foundational rights at stake, the right to their own life; it is a wash.

invalid-0

Paul, you are utterly obsessed with fetuses, you lead everyone around in circles with your endless, exasperating nit-picking and doublespeak. No wonder they got tired of you. It is clear that this is going nowhere and debating with you is like arguing with a brick wall.

I have made my point clear, over and over, that it is up to the pregnant woman (and if possible, her partner) to decide what to do with a pregnancy, whether that be aborting it, or keeping it and adopting it out or parenting it. A fetus is not a person, a woman’s womb is not a democracy, and it does not get a say in the matter.

Like ahunt said, you cannot have it both ways, and an already born person trumps a potential one. You have repeatedly said that it’s a person as soon as the sperm hits the ova, completely defying all medical and scientific logic. As someone here said, how low must one’s regard for women, health, and free will be when all that is cast aside for the sake of a fetus? The idea of a fertilized egg/z/e/f as a person is dumb, and another issue – the whole “the contraceptive pill causes abortion” trope – is dumb. Women are not baby dispensing machines, and a fetus is not a person until it is born – get to grips with it.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

First you say I am setting up straw-men, and now you say I am using circular arguments?
Yes, you have made your point clear, over and over; and I have refuted it, over and over. Your rebuttal to my refutations has been to restate your original point, call my reasons “dumb”, and call me a misogynist.
That is circular reasoning, an appeal to ridicule, and an ad hominem attack, respectively. None of these logical fallacies strengthens your position, and they certainly don’t disprove mine.
If that is too nit-picky, exasperating, or “brick wallish” for you, well, I don’t write the rules for logical debate.
Please show me where my reasoning becomes circular, I’ll happily admit error if you can show me examples. I’ll admit right now that I am not as concise as I could be, and I am working on that. Believe it or not, it is not my intention to be irritating, only thorough and honest.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Princess Rot’s post on March 5th, 3:16pm

Sorry, forgot to specify that.

invalid-0

he the fetus is a person, than it has rights equal to the mother. If the mother doesn’t wish to be pregnant because it infringes upon her liberty, we must remember that an abortion would violate the fetus’ right to life. Since the mother’s right to liberty is equal to the fetus’ right to liberty, and the mother’s right to life is equal to the fetus’ right to life, and there is no escaping the fact that either the mother or the fetus will have their rights infringed upon, we must look which person will have their most foundational right violated, which would be the fetus in the case of the abortion. Therefore, the abortion is unjustified from civil rights point of view.

So therefore…there is no equality of rights and you are arguing that a fertilized ova has greater rights than the living, breathing woman.

Thank you for acknowledging this.

invalid-0

The right to life saving medical care does not include the right to harm to another person.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

I assume you are talking about organ donation. Your declining to donate an organ doesn’t kill the person, and you have no intention of killing the transplant patient. They will either find another organ, or the disease they have will kill them. This is not a violation of the right to life. In an abortion, you are not just declining to ‘donate’ your organs, you are dismembering the ‘transplant patient’, with the intention of killing him. This is a violation of the right to life.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Each person has equal rights to life, liberty, etc.
Some rights have greater importance than others, because revoking these rights revoke all others.

The fetus and the mother have equal rights. The fetus has a more foundational right being violated, the right to life, and therefore all of its other rights are also denied.

invalid-0

Paul, you are ignorant if you cannot see the connection between declaring a fetus a person with an unassailable right to life and the legal and social consequences for women who engage in behaviors that might harm a fetus. As soon as we bestow rights on fetuses, we separate them from women and create an competing relationship that hurts women and insults their autonomy.

You say that a consequence of agreeing to sex is the potential pregnancy. This argument is sexist because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behavior. How about we enact some kind of physical, financial or social penalty on men who have more than one partner because there is a possibility of each woman getting pregnant? No, because it’s stupid, controlling, and sexist. (Heterosexual men also already have the advantage of not being castigated for multiple sexual partners – there is no male version of “slut”.)

The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus – it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women – as it should. You argue about whether it is logically possible for two to inhabit the same body without one somehow violating the rights of the other. No, it is not. That is why the fetus does not have rights in the first place. They do not gain the status of persons by virtue of living inside the body of another person – the idea is foundationally ridiculous. Women do not need to be passively forced into birthing by having no other option – the majority will reproduce when they are good and ready. Forcing them when they do not want to is reproductive slavery that will make miserable women, miserable families, and overflowing orphanages, and contribute to overpopulation.

You cannot have it both ways. That is your circular reasoning, and that is why your argument is is dumb. Put down the horse-whip, and get away from the equine cadaver. Fetuses are not people.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

The mother has an equal right to life, but unless it is threatened by the pregnancy, her right to life is not being violated.

Or we can put it this way, we’ve got two equally valuable parties, if we choose one way, one will die. If we choose the other, no one dies, but one has to work really hard for at least 9 months. How would that weigh out in the scales of justice?

invalid-0

And for those who do believe in the whole fetal personhood thing….if two people are dying a natural death (pregnancy is one example, but there are others where no set of equal rights leads to this conclusion) we can actively kill one person if it will save the other?

invalid-0

Translation – the right to life here doesn’t trump the other persons liberty.

invalid-0

And no, this isn’t just organ donation. It covers any harm in order to obtain it.

invalid-0

Other’s liberties trump “the right to life” because force pregnancy is worse than forced inhalation?

invalid-0

Other’s liberties trump “the right to life” because forced pregnancy is worse than forced homicide?

invalid-0

Taking action to stop someone who needs your body to maintain their life is an act of killing.

invalid-0

If this still isn’t getting through to you, Joyce Arthur puts it thusly:

Perhaps an effective way to convey this is to explain how I felt about my own abortion 15 years ago, obtained under Canada’s old discriminatory system of therapeutic hospital abortion committees. The thing that enraged me then, and still does today, is this single overriding thought: How dare they. How dare anyone tell me what I can do with my body, my life. How dare anyone tell me I should submit to their preconceived ideas of how a woman should think and feel, decide and act, live and breathe. How dare they. My life is no-one else’s to lead, no-one else’s to make stereotyped judgements upon, no-one else’s to paternalistically manage. If I want advice and support from others over difficult life decisions, I’ll seek it on my own and take what I need from it. Ultimately, I am the final arbiter when it comes to my life. And my decision-making ability includes deciding the fate of my embryo or fetus. Since it lives inside my body and is completely dependent on me and no-one else for its survival, it literally belongs to me and no-one else. I’m solely responsible for it. It has no independent rights because it has no independent existence. This is not selfishness or a lack of caring for my fetus – quite the opposite. It represents maturity and respect, based on a gut-level belief that I shouldn’t inflict myself on a child who deserves better.

Anti-choicers claim that nobody’s looking out for fetuses except them. They ignore the fact that only pregnant woman are qualified to make decisions on behalf of their fetuses. Not only can we trust women to make the best decision – whether it’s to give birth or have an abortion – but we must allow women to make mistakes they might regret, too. With rights come responsibilities. In the end, a woman’s decision about what to do with her fetus is nobody’s business but hers. Any unwanted interference with her decision is not only immoral, it’s an outrage and an insult, because it says a woman can’t be trusted to make responsible decisions about her own life. It reduces her to the status of a child or a piece of chattel. That’s why the abortion issue should have no place in politics or law. It’s a private health decision that women make based on their personal ethics and life circumstances, not a political football.

invalid-0

You forgot the most fundamental right: No one has the right to take another innocent person’s life.

Actually, the most fundamental right is ownership of one’s own body. And as far as “innocent” goes…what precisely are women with unwanted pregnancies guilty of…(and I suggest that you be very careful here, Paul.)

invalid-0

If this still isn’t getting through to you, Joyce Arthur puts it thusly:

Princess Rot, thank you for that excellent, excellent quote.

Paul’s argument from pure “logic” is disturbing not only because of the bizarre conclusion he’s trying to uphold (equating a grown woman and a single-celled entity to the point that their rights have to be “balanced”), but also because it is utterly divorced from the very human realities underlying the need for abortion (and the importance of ensuring its safe availability).

I don’t think there’s anything we can say here that will change Paul’s views. Being a male, he has no immediate stake in this argument; he’s perfectly happy to abuse syllogisms (and the English language) on “human life” that will ultimately have impact on other persons’ lives and none on his own.

The only thing that I think will convince him, is if someone close to him—a younger sister, or niece, say—happens to have a condom break on her during sex, is terrified of the prospect of becoming pregnant, and comes to him for advice. Only when he starts to enunciate to her why it would be wrong to abort the potential early-early-early-stage undeveloped human life within her, will he likely grasp the sheer cruelty and heartlessness of the logic he is pressing here. I wouldn’t be surprised if he discreetly arranges for her to take Plan B or RU-486, judging the circumstances of this person close to him to be different than that of other women (you know, a variation of “the only moral abortion is my own”). I wouldn’t even be surprised if he continued arguing his zygote-as-person viewpoint, feeling that hypocrisy is easier on his conscience than refusing to give his relation a way out. After all, we’ve heard of abortion-clinic protestors who, one day, become a client—and then continue protesting the very next day.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Paul would uphold his logic even when someone close to him bears the costs. After all, the Catholic Church officially opposes abortion even when it means a 9-year-old girl has to give birth to twins. The world is full of people who are completely, utterly bereft of empathy for their fellow human being—and I don’t know if Paul, were he to go through that sort of emotional trial by fire, would be one of them.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Yah…I’m not getting it either…no one’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness overrides my right to my own possessions.
Definitely not following.

So if I owned a slave, I would be able to keep it because his or her right to life and liberty doesn’t override my right to my own possessions, right?

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Without the right to life, anyone can kill you, and therefore you also have no ownership of your body. The right to life is therefore a more foundational right.

invalid-0

I think its safe to assume from ahunts statement that ahunt was talking about rights …not non-rights. Possessing a slave isn’t a right.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Paul, you are ignorant if you cannot see the connection between declaring a fetus a person with an unassailable right to life and the legal and social consequences for women who engage in behaviors that might harm a fetus.

Logical fallacy: ad hominem attack.

As soon as we bestow rights on fetuses, we separate them from women and create an competing relationship that hurts women and insults their autonomy.

When we determine what rights something has, we ALWAYS look at the nature of that object, and never ONLY at its relationship to the other things it affects.
You could use the same reasoning and say that as soon as we bestow rights on slaves, we separate them their owners and create a competing relationship that hurts the owners and insults their right to property.
Whether or not the slave hurts the owner or insults the owner’s right to property, it has nothing to do with what rights the slave has. We look at nature of what the slave IS.

You say that a consequence of agreeing to sex is the potential pregnancy. This argument is sexist because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behavior. How about we enact some kind of physical, financial or social penalty on men who have more than one partner because there is a possibility of each woman getting pregnant? No, because it’s stupid, controlling, and sexist. (Heterosexual men also already have the advantage of not being castigated for multiple sexual partners – there is no male version of “slut”.)

When you consent to an action, you consent to the possible outcomes, not just the outcome you want. If a doctor sits down with you before a surgery and says, “Listen, I know you want outcome A to happen, but outcomes B, C, & D can also happen”, and you consent, you cannot then go back to the doctor and complain that outcome D happened. Furthermore, outcome D is not a punishment, there is no intent behind uncontrollable outcomes. This is true whether you wish to continue calling me sexist or not.

The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus – it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women – as it should.

Unrelated to the status of the fetus? The very practice of abortion is to change the status of the fetus, from living to dead. If an abortion fails to change this status, it has failed.

You argue about whether it is logically possible for two to inhabit the same body without one somehow violating the rights of the other. No, it is not. That is why the fetus does not have rights in the first place.

Please, read what I actually wrote, carefully. I have always argued that EVERYONE’s rights are infringed upon by those around us, including the mother and the fetus. What I am actually arguing is that their rights are equal in value, but abortion violates a more fundamental right.

They do not gain the status of persons by virtue of living inside the body of another person – the idea is foundationally ridiculous.

Logical fallacy: appeal to ridicule.

Women do not need to be passively forced into birthing by having no other option – the majority will reproduce when they are good and ready. Forcing them when they do not want to is reproductive slavery that will make miserable women, miserable families, and overflowing orphanages, and contribute to overpopulation.

All of this is speculation.

You cannot have it both ways. That is your circular reasoning.

You misrepresented my reasoning.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Perhaps an effective way to convey this is to explain how I felt about my own abortion 15 years ago, obtained under Canada’s old discriminatory system of therapeutic hospital abortion committees. The thing that enraged me then, and still does today, is this single overriding thought: How dare they. How dare anyone tell me what I can do with my body, my life. How dare anyone tell me I should submit to their preconceived ideas of how a woman should think and feel, decide and act, live and breathe. How dare they. My life is no-one else’s to lead, no-one else’s to make stereotyped judgements upon, no-one else’s to paternalistically manage. If I want advice and support from others over difficult life decisions, I’ll seek it on my own and take what I need from it. Ultimately, I am the final arbiter when it comes to my life.

If I were her, I’d agree. A therapeutic abortion committee? How ridiculous. Either abortion is only about a woman’s rights, or it is about both the woman and the fetus rights. It should either be totally legal or totally banned. I can’t see how either way should involve a committee. That is insulting.

And my decision-making ability includes deciding the fate of my embryo or fetus. Since it lives inside my body and is completely dependent on me and no-one else for its survival, it literally belongs to me and no-one else. I’m solely responsible for it. It has no independent rights because it has no independent existence.

Again, degree of dependency has no bearing on personhood. Newborns are completely dependent, as are many of the elderly and disabled, and they are often completely dependent on one person. This does not mean that that one person can kill them.

This is not selfishness or a lack of caring for my fetus – quite the opposite. It represents maturity and respect, based on a gut-level belief that I shouldn’t inflict myself on a child who deserves better.

Wait a minute, how does a clump of cells deserve anything?

Anti-choicers claim that nobody’s looking out for fetuses except them. They ignore the fact that only pregnant woman are qualified to make decisions on behalf of their fetuses. Not only can we trust women to make the best decision – whether it’s to give birth or have an abortion – but we must allow women to make mistakes they might regret, too. With rights come responsibilities. In the end, a woman’s decision about what to do with her fetus is nobody’s business but hers. Any unwanted interference with her decision is not only immoral, it’s an outrage and an insult, because it says a woman can’t be trusted to make responsible decisions about her own life. It reduces her to the status of a child or a piece of chattel. That’s why the abortion issue should have no place in politics or law. It’s a private health decision that women make based on their personal ethics and life circumstances, not a political football

Again, I have never argued that women aren’t smart, responsible, and moral. I am arguing that just because someone is smart, responsible, and moral, does not mean that all of their actions are smart, responsible, and moral. Do we decide court cases on character judgments alone? No, we look at action itself and the intention behind the action.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Slavery was a right in this country until 1862. So, in 1800, if you owned a slave, would it be justifiable to deny his or her right to life and liberty in-order for you to claim your right to own property?

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

I will address one statement in this entire post.

he’s perfectly happy to abuse syllogisms (and the English language) on “human life” that will ultimately have impact on other persons’ lives and none on his own.

Human life and its presence at the completion of fertilization is a scientifically observable fact.
The rest of this is completely ludicrous and utterly irrelevant.

invalid-0

Human life and its presence at the completion of fertilization is a scientifically observable fact.

Since you’re so dead-set on playing the logic game, let me try a proposition of my own:

1. A human egg cell has human DNA. Therefore it is human. It is not canine, feline, or anything other than human.

2. A living egg cell is alive. It is not dead.

3. Therefore, the living, human egg cell is human life. It is not nonhuman, nor is it dead.

4. Killing a human life is murder.

5. Therefore, killing an egg cell is murder.

Explain to me why people should accept your thesis (substitute “fertilized egg cell” in the lines above), and reject mine.

(Princess Rot, ahunt et al.: You’re welcome to join in. I don’t have as much time to kill as this Paul fellow does.)

The rest of this is completely ludicrous and utterly irrelevant.

Yes, forcing a 9-year-old girl to give birth is completely ludicrous. And it is utterly irrelevant to you, because you don’t give a s*** about the consequences of what you are proposing. Why should you? You’re never going to become pregnant, after all!

invalid-0

Why does it matter if a pill changes the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation? If a fertilized egg finds no uterine lining to snuggle up to for the next nine months, the body naturally eliminates it. Are you suggesting that by starting a regime of a daily birth control pill in March, a woman doesn’t have the right to change her uterine lining so she can enjoy herself and f**k her brains out in July without getting pregnant?

Of course it doesn’t lessen the need to determine the rights of the fetus if that’s what floats your boat. Once it’s deposited into the surrogate womb or an artificial one at the lab, you are free to do with it what you want. By the way, I’m curious. What do you think of the artificial womb and lab? Anyway, since this is a medical procedure and most likely a religious crusade and has nothing to do with politics, hence no need to get the government involved using our tax money, I’m sure you, Paul, and all others who think as you do would be more than happy to privately fund and support any labs operated for the growth of unwanted z/e/f’s.

As for the frozen embryos, personally I feel they can stay frozen in limbo until hell itself freezes over. There are plenty of other frozen embryos in other countries that are available for stem cell research. Many of the coming cures will be made available to the world with out frozen US of A embryos. Or, will you try to make it a felony for an American to save their life or a loved ones if the cure was founded on stem cell research?

As to your second reason, the rights of the unborn are only irrelevant to the woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant. Again, do with it what you will after its removal from her uterus. No one cares after that except people who think as you. People who think as I are more concerned with the woman. My intention with the idea was to end this abortion debate and intrusion by uninvited, busy body, religious, non medical “experts” into a woman or couples reproductive decisions. People can finally focus on the well being of people from one minute – after birth – to 100 years old who are painfully starving to death, dying to thirst, being chopped to death by rebels in civil wars, ravaged by disease and generally neglected by western societies.

Your third point. Guess what? Tens of thousands of children are dying everyday around the world. Read above. Some painfully, horrifically; most I would like to think are loved and cherished. And here you are worried about z/e/f’s that aren’t even wanted. You know what the real shame is in this country? That this abortion debate has gotten so out of hand for the pro lifers. They value life so much until mom is in the delivery room. After that, all the conservatives do is start to whine about “socialism” because now the kid(s) need to eat, a roof over their head, clothes on their back, medical care and a support system. All of a sudden they don’t want to pay for other peoples poor choices when the government wants to step in and provide help.

It would be nice if that compassion for the contents of the womb was translated into action on the behalf of the children already here. But it never is. It’s nothing more than play ground bullies all grown up with a different shtick.

Call them misogynists, vestiges of old paternal societies that are slow to die off, or just men with God complexes and the women who love them, but I see no evidence of this not being a conspiracy by some men, particularly paternalistic evangelicals, against all women, to keep them under the thumb of men. Otherwise, why would men be so anxious to wage war and eager to kill former and current children, yet be so determined to see unborn children have their chance at seeing the light of day? What are they, replacement targets? Are we suppose to load them up into a giant sling shot and wait for you to yell “pull” on the battlefields?

A parting muse. Why aren’t the houses of the religious right and other pro life folk full of older, minorty or mentally/physically disabled children? Could it be that no one adopts them because no one wants them?

invalid-0

Why does it matter if a pill changes the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation? If a fertilized egg finds no uterine lining to snuggle up to for the next nine months, the body naturally eliminates it. Are you suggesting that by starting a regime of a daily birth control pill in March, a woman doesn’t have the right to change her uterine lining so she can enjoy herself and f**k her brains out in July without getting pregnant?

Of course it doesn’t lessen the need to determine the rights of the fetus if that’s what floats your boat. Once it’s deposited into the surrogate womb or an artificial one at the lab, you are free to do with it what you want. By the way, I’m curious. What do you think of the artificial womb and lab? Anyway, since this is a medical procedure and most likely a religious crusade and has nothing to do with politics, hence no need to get the government involved using our tax money, I’m sure you, Paul, and all others who think as you do would be more than happy to privately fund and support any labs operated for the growth of unwanted z/e/f’s.

As for the frozen embryos, personally I feel they can stay frozen in limbo until hell itself freezes over. There are plenty of other frozen embryos in other countries that are available for stem cell research. Many of the coming cures will be made available to the world with out frozen US of A embryos. Or, will you try to make it a felony for an American to save their life or a loved ones if the cure was founded on stem cell research?

As to your second reason, the rights of the unborn are only irrelevant to the woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant. Again, do with it what you will after its removal from her uterus. No one cares after that except people who think as you. People who think as I are more concerned with the woman. My intention with the idea was to end this abortion debate and intrusion by uninvited, busy body, religious, non medical “experts” into a woman or couples reproductive decisions. People can finally focus on the well being of people from one minute – after birth – to 100 years old who are painfully starving to death, dying to thirst, being chopped to death by rebels in civil wars, ravaged by disease and generally neglected by western societies.

Your third point. Guess what? Tens of thousands of children are dying everyday around the world. Read above. Some painfully, horrifically; most I would like to think are loved and cherished. And here you are worried about z/e/f’s that aren’t even wanted. You know what the real shame is in this country? That this abortion debate has gotten so out of hand for the pro lifers. They value life so much until mom is in the delivery room. After that, all the conservatives do is start to whine about “socialism” because now the kid(s) need to eat, a roof over their head, clothes on their back, medical care and a support system. All of a sudden they don’t want to pay for other peoples poor choices when the government wants to step in and provide help.

It would be nice if that compassion for the contents of the womb was translated into action on the behalf of the children already here. But it never is. It’s nothing more than play ground bullies all grown up with a different shtick.

Call them misogynists, vestiges of old paternal societies that are slow to die off, or just men with God complexes and the women who love them, but I see no evidence of this not being a conspiracy by some men, particularly paternalistic evangelicals, against all women, to keep them under the thumb of men. Otherwise, why would men be so anxious to wage war and eager to kill former and current children, yet be so determined to see unborn children have their chance at seeing the light of day? What are they, replacement targets? Are we suppose to load them up into a giant sling shot and wait for you to yell “pull” on the battlefields?

A parting muse. Why aren’t the houses of the religious right and other pro life folk full of older, minorty or mentally/physically disabled children? Could it be that no one adopts them because no one wants them?

invalid-0

Sorry for the double post. I hit the button twice. It was very late at night or obscenely early in the morning, depending on your point of view

invalid-0

Here’s some news for the woman-hating posters here: until it leaves my body, it’s a parasite, nothing more. And if you don’t have a uterus, you don’t get a say in the matter. Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. Simple. If you must fetishize a clump of organism-dependent cells, give pet names to your cancers or tumors.

You’re not going to cause women to stop having sex with whomever they choose, whenever they choose. (And you can’t make ‘em have sex with you either, sorry.) The best you can do is to support access to education, contraception and reproductive health services. And, of course, for you that will also mean keeping it zipped up! Be responsible in your own actions.

To the overgrown fetus at the top of the thread: There has been legalized murder of actual people in this country for a long time. You want to make a difference in your community? Fight the death penalty against actual post-uterus-dwelling types. Leave the blastocysts to women and their chosen medical practitioners, because that is none of your business. Women’s lives matter for their own reasons, despite your trying to reduce them to walking incubators.

invalid-0

So by keeping abortion legal, safe and readily accessible, we are helping to preserve the lives of women. You seem to be saying that you, personally, devalue women so much that you’d rather see them dead than to honor their legal choice to a safe medical abortion. That’s sick and yet revealing. Moving on.

invalid-0

Not all abortion methods dismember. You can simply stop the fetus from using your body and its own inability to live outside of the womb is what leads to its death.

Regardless, its not a violation of the right to life to stop someone from using your body to maintain theirs as the right to life doesn’t include the right to use anothers body. Its foundations/hierarchy/right is limited by that.

invalid-0

I think its safe to assume that ahunt is referring to rights as they stand within her lifetime and not the myriad of issues throughout history, slavery being only one of a multitude of topics, that have been against settled law even before ahunts presence on this earth.

invalid-0

Stem cell are developed into lines and kept alive. The cells that are discarded from the embryo are the cells that would form the placenta and membranes.

And if a healthy embryo is kept in tact in a petri dish and allowed to grow they always turn into tumors but never babies. They are still alive and still growing but they themselves grow into tumors.

invalid-0

Hey Anonymous,

These human eggs cells should actually be called unconceived babies, and also another class of unborn babies given that they are unborn too.

colleen

"Human life and its presence at the completion of fertilization is a scientifically observable fact."

I’m not surprised that not one of you far right Catholics has responded in that thread. Have you read it?

invalid-0

A woman may just intend that the fetus not use her body.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

We can only talk about rights that occur during ahunts lifetime?? That is a ridiculous requirement. What does the specific span of years that makes up ahunts existence have to do with anything?

I would argue that slavery has ALWAYS been wrong, whether it was legal or not. It is a “non-right” as you put it, because it holds that one person’s right to own property can super-cede another person’s right to life and liberty.

invalid-0

No, I just won’t jump to the conclusion that ahunts was referring to rights, say in 1653, 1419, 1852 or some other time. The 13th amendment simply banned involuntary servitude…its very straight forward text. It doesn’t proclaim that someone’s liberty interests supersede legal property.

invalid-0

In the absence of ahunt mentioning any reference to history, its pretty safe to say ahunt is referring to current rights.

invalid-0

Actually Paul…it is a rational requirement. The fact that no one in the US today may own another person renders your argument irrelevant.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Hardly irrelevant. Why is slavery illegal NOW? Why can’t I own a slave today? The reason we can’t own slaves is because our government finally realized that the right to own property cannot come at the expense of another’s right to life and liberty.

And how is a rational requirement that we can only talk about present laws when talking about human rights? Do human rights themselves change? Or do we just get better (or worse) at recognizing them?

invalid-0

No, as stated previously they abolish involuntary servitude in the 13th amendment….its very easy to read. There is nothing about someone being able to exercise liberty rights over my legal property.

invalid-0

Slavery was abolished, people aren’t property. Your argument is not relevant to ahunts comments on rights.

invalid-0

The reason that we cannot own slaves is that we cannot own people, because people ARE NOT property.

{Banging head against the brick wall)

And how is a rational requirement that we can only talk about present laws when talking about human rights?
Because slavery is illegal, and has no bearing on the abortion issue…unless of course, we want to talk about a zygote enslaving a woman.

Do human rights themselves change? Or do we just get better (or worse) at recognizing them?

invalid-0

Well done everyone here, but I do not think we are ever going to convince Paul that only women are fit to make decisions about their own reproduction. You can call my reasons speculation or ad hominem or anything you want, Paul, you’ll still be blind. You only need to look at countries where abortion is totally illegal (Mexico, Chile, Romania, Nicaragua) or to the news to see what effects anti-choice crap has on women and on society. Unsurprisingly, it’s utterly shit for them.

what precisely are women with unwanted pregnancies guilty of…(and I suggest that you be very careful here, Paul.)

I never claimed that women with unwanted pregnancies are guilty of anything.

invalid-0

Abortion is not killing?

therealistmom

There is an organism that "dies" when a pregnancy is terminated. Nobody has ever denied that. The point is, pregnancy is the period of time that a fetus develops into a fully-fledged human being, a sentient person. Before the point of sentience it is simply a potential person. Killing in and of itself is not necessarily immoral- there are reasons organisms are killed every day, every moment. We kill off parasites or bacteria that invade our bodies unwanted. Plants and animals are killed to feed higher ups on the food chain. The fact that something is "alive" and human does not bestow upon it any sacred "life" more than any other- it is when a human person exists as an independent entity and not a literal parasite (this is NOT a negative term; it describes the relationship of woman and fetus) that it joins the ranks of humanity.

harry834

"Here’s some news for the woman-hating posters here: until it leaves my
body, it’s a parasite, nothing more. And if you don’t have a uterus,
you don’t get a say in the matter."

I might not have used those words, but then again, I as a man, would never have to defend my right to control my body and what is allowed to grow inside it. Paul may not appreciate being called a "woman-hater", but if he defends a philosophy whereby women must be pregnant against their will, and against their choice, then I’m not sure how he would not be a part of that category.

Every woman has the human right to determine their own fate. This right does not get suspended when a woman becomes pregnant.

harry834

women must fight for this right.

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

If you actually want this culture war to end, here is a thought: it’ll never happen until each side at least assumes the honesty and good intentions of the other side.
I have never accused anyone that I debated with here as being a baby-hater, or someone who enjoys the thought killing millions of embryos across the world. I believe you when you say you are in this to help out women dealing with unplanned pregnancy. Obviously, I strongly disagree about the means that are being taken to reach this end. But even when I don’t know you personally, or what kind of person you are when you are not commenting here, I’m ready to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, women dealing with unplanned pregnancies need our help, support, and compassion.
All the personal attacks thrown at me, the rampant and utterly unfounded speculation regarding who I am and where I stand regarding the rights and dignity of women do nothing to further our debate. If you want to call my arguments worthless, thats fine. But know that your rash judgment of character does nothing to help the perception of your movement, much less the rationality of your arguments.
I’m not saying all of this because I’m going to lose sleep because somebody on the internet called me a bad name. I honestly that we need to clean up public debate about this, on both sides. I don’t believe that debate will be effective in the slightest unless we debate rationally and with respect. If at any point I have failed to hold myself to this standard, then I apologize. To those of you who replied to my comments respectfully, thank you.

invalid-0

“If you actually want this culture war to end, here is a thought: it’ll never happen until each side at least assumes the honesty and good intentions of the other side.”

Paul, you’re here supporting a bill which explicitly denies all women of childbearing age our constitutional rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It’s a bill that makes human gestation a form of slavery. How can anyone possibly assume your good intentions?
The culture war will end when men like you recognise the depth and arrogance of your insults and are ashamed.

harry834

even if we assume that the pro-life community means well, isn’t it a statement of fact that

…does that mean if it becomes law, every fertility clinic in the state has to register each and every egg fertilized (a boon for civil service workers in each county so fortunate to have just one)? What’s the clinic supposed to do when a great many number of those eggs out-last their “shelf life (or is the more precise term “shelved lives?”)?” How about taking them to the statehouse, removing them from their cryogenic tanks and let them thaw out in the bill “hopper” to remind the bozo-majority feel-good panderer’s legislation is not without consequences. The capitol police will need to file death certificates for each and every egg, and investigate each “homicide” performed in their jurisdiction. I’m sure the “great” state of North Dakota has the resources available to conduct such an exercise without needing to raise an extra dime in taxes. Will North Dakota use its Head Start block grant money to “homeschool” all the eggs, now that they’re people? Can’t wait to see the next census! Oh, I’ve barely scratched the bureaucratic possibilities nor have we even explored the social consequences of such STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!

http://treebeardforlife.blogspot.com invalid-0

Sure you could say that, and then pro-lifers would say:
even if we assume that the pro-choice community means well, isn’t it a statement of fact that they want to keep abortion legal abortion
and,
that keeping abortion legal will continue the killing of 3500 babies in the US alone
?
This kind of approach discourages critical thinking about one’s own position, and encourages us to demonize those we disagree with. We’d continue arguing past each other about how pro-lifers are woman-haters and how pro-choicers love dead babies, instead of actually debating the issue.

invalid-0

that keeping abortion legal will continue the killing of 3500 babies in the US alone

Oh please. Abortion ends a pregnancy. It is illegal to kill babies in this country. And I’m pretty sure pro-choice folks aren’t trying to make it legal…

invalid-0

“Abortion ends a pregnancy.”

Per this and one of your prior comments – hence the anti’s separate but related attempts to also define pregnancy as beginning at conception instead of implantation so they can call pre-implantation abortion too.

invalid-0

Why are there eggs in cryogenic tanks?

invalid-0

…I’d still want the product of expensive “test-tube” fertilization to be kept in as controlled an environment as possible, suspending animation, hence the need to freeze. Should more than one egg harvested from a female become fertilized, whatever isn’t used in the first implantation attempt is frozen and stored, in case another attempt is required. “Freezer burn” is what happens on a cellular level, multiplied exponentially when a person sees it – clinics can’t afford to lose product that way and face the inevitable lawsuits of pain and suffering (beginning with what it took to extract the woman’s eggs prior to IVF). Even with the most balanced form of refrigeration, nothing we freeze maintains the quality it had prior to freezing, hence the term “shelf-life.” If the “tanked” eggs are not implanted, eventually they will be discarded. Once again, I’m not in the industry, although I used to work to maximize quality assurance of whatever frozen products my store would sell – it is unethical and bad business to knowing sell something which has freezer-burned or outlasted its “sell by” date AND it’s worse when there are procedures to rotate product that are knowingly not being followed to the detriment of the consumer. I think the IVF people would agree, which is why it costs so much to do the procedure: Quality Assurance!

invalid-0

If implanting these frozen eggs brings a new born, where does the life come from?

invalid-0

…where it occurs has much more sway over the objective of complete gestation. Even under natural conditions, a fertilized egg may fail to implant. And the IVF egg must be thawed before the attempt (introducing one at its “holding” temperature would prove injurious, if not fatal). I’m sure there are a lot of other steps needed in between removal from the tank and insertion into the uterus; that’s not my bag. Now I wonder: has an IVF ever been “clinically” aborted after successful implantation? If it’s a rarity, under what circumstances but if it’s common, why the choice?

invalid-0

Assuming disposing IVF eggs is abortion, then the guess is IVF egg abortion is common?
Assuming IVF egg abortion is common, would convenience (for the egg property owner) be the motive?

invalid-0

…next Octo-mom! For a small amount of words, several issues have been raised. If a bunch of eggs get fertilized, then are frozen, then get thawed-out and the first one implanted “takes,” do you really want to implant the rest? For the “convenience” of the implantee and the taxpayer, I hope not. “Abortion” is a clearly-defined procedure and I doubt the IVF community would call what it does with the extra eggs abortion. I’m sure there is plenty of information out there attesting to frequency of egg-disposal, so assumptions need not be made. I hope, Anon, that by using the word “convenience” you are not equating abortion with some frivolous activity or even one that derives pleasure: I’ve never heard of a woman who jumped out of the stirrups and said, “I can’t wait to do this again!” Having never asked/demanded/contribute-to anyone getting an abortion, but having heard from those who did before met them (and the one who I knew before she had one because her future husband got “distracted” by a larger-breasted female) I think abortion is a choice made on the practicality of economics or lack thereof. Maybe there’s one woman out there who’s got tons of cash and could easily raise a child – or pay others to do it – but still gets the abortion. No, you won’t see Paris Hilton entering your nearby clinic any time soon, but with a lot formerly-wealthy people’s investments down the toilet, you might see more women who adopted her lifestyle getting abortions because they got the “look,” but have no more “bank.” As to property-owner, that’s not all clear just who “owns an IVF egg: I’ve heard of one court case where a divorced man wanted custody of the eggs because he was sterile and his ex said “no.” Also, since the eggs are frozen, there are maintenance costs to maintain temperature and inventory control: who owns the egg if the bill don’t get paid? What if those who participated in supplying the raw materials are dead?

invalid-0

No doubt that abortion can save the cost (of both money and time) of raising the first or additional child.

Can society accept this cost savings as the justification for abortion?

invalid-0

No doubt that abortion can save the cost (of both money and time) of raising the first or additional child.

Can society accept this cost savings as the justification for abortion?

Not throwing people in jail for speaking out against the government also tends to save money (y’know, no need to pay for prisons to house dissidents), but that is not the reason why we have free-speech laws.

http://www.drug-aware.com/alcohol-test-kits.htm invalid-0

I personally don’t agree with abortion and if I ever had to have an abortion I’d probably never get over it, but if someone gets pregnant and isn’t in a position to be able to look after a child then I think they should have the right to get an abortion because they will struggle to have the child and it’s quality of life will not be very good. Also say if someone got raped and ended up pregnant, if they had that child they could possibly be reminded of that trauma by the child every day and while some people might cherish the child anyway others may resent it.

invalid-0

What is disagreeable with an abortion?

http://www.translation.com invalid-0

the issue i’ve always had with that is what if a woman is raped? would she then be obligated to give birth to the baby? what about if its a high risk pregnancy?

invalid-0

The rape victim risks an emotional future. The question is abort the prenatal or make mother endure emotional future.

The “high risk pregnancy” risks life. Is this question asking who to abort (i.e. the prenatal or the mother), not if to abort?

invalid-0

ew, the pregnant woman with a high risk pregnancy crawled up yet another womans uterus? As mentioned in another thread by another commenter, abortion is shorthand for the early termination of pregnancy. Childbirth also terminates the pregnancy.

invalid-0

high risk pregnancy is a natural death.

invalid-0

it is one of many variations of natural ends to life.

invalid-0

What does a “natural death” mean?

invalid-0

Is pregnancy not natural? And are there not also ICD-9 codes for the range of normal delivery and also complications from such?

invalid-0

Pregnancy is natural and high risk pregnancy resulting in death of the woman is one of the range of natural complications. Deciding on human intervention overrides nature and decides to prematurely kill one in order to prevent a natural death of another.

http://www.automobilefreaks.com invalid-0

Keep fighting the good fight brother!

http://www.translation.com invalid-0

when debating about this issue, i notice that people bring up the issue of personhood, what is or isn’t alive, what is considered human, etc. i want to know if pro-life supporters think there are any exceptions. obviously, every woman is different and the situation that surrounds her pregnancy are unique. what do pro-life supporters think of women in non-Western countries who do not have access to contraception cannot of their own will remain abstinent? how about women who are raped? basically, i’m wondering what your views are if the woman did not choose to take the actions that lead to pregnancy; if those actions were forced upon her.

invalid-0

You bring up two important abortion aspects. What is life or personhood and what exceptions exist for women who do not volunteer to pregnancy. The life or personhood aspect brings up the killing questions if and when while the involuntary pregnancy aspect brings up the who should bear the pregnancy costs.

You first mentioned the life or personhood aspect. Most pro choice do not argue the idea of prenatal being a unique living human. No credible medical doctor argues the unique living human fact. Pro choice prefers to argue the personhood factor based on prenatal’ self awareness, pain perception, metal capacity, movement, consciousness, etc. type factors. All these merit factors work subjectively both prenatal and post birth. The next question is can these factors justify killing people who are aged, unconscious, under drugs or anesthesia, severely deformed, etc.

You second mentioned the involuntary pregnancy aspect. No doubt involuntary pregnancy causes consequences. The question is who bears the consequences. The assumption is the perpetrator causing pregnancy can not be held to bear the consequences. If the prenatal bears these consequences, then should the new born also have to bear these same consequences?

Can society make the new born bear the same consequences as the prenatal? Can killing be justified for any that lack the merit factors that might justify killing those not granted prenatal personhood?

invalid-0

should the newborn that still needs anothers body bear the cost of suddenly not having that right by not having its right to life protected to the same extent? should the person who takes an action to stop another who needs their body to maintain their life, thereby killing them, not bear the cost? should the woman who voluntarily gets pregnant knowing that problems occur in pregnancy (or knows in advance of genetic issues) to the prenatal (or during prenatal care prior to conception) not bear the cost of the birth defects?

invalid-0

Is abortion a delicate subject because society must decide who is politically strongest or what is the right answer?

invalid-0

Pregnancy is natural and high risk pregnancy resulting in death of the woman is one of the range of natural complications. Deciding on human intervention overrides nature

So I guess antibiotics are right out, then. And pharmaceuticals. And pretty much all of modern medicine….

invalid-0

…like chemo which kills a unique human DNA (cancer) that’s different than the woman’s.

invalid-0

Better make sure your cancer is kept alive. Cancer can survive outside its host when it has the right environmental conditions that it needs just as we also need the right conditions in our environment as the reason why were able to live, and just as the non-viable fetus needs the woman to provide the right conditions by her body for it to live…..and also no different than the cancer patient who has the right to interventions to remove the cancer in order to have the right conditions to continue to live and not die. When this has been done to keep it alive, cancers have remained alive and growing outside their host. Even today when we can save the host and also save the cancer (unique human DNA) itself, we choose to save the host yet kill the cancer outright without regard to its rights including the right to life that can be equally balanced…chemotherapy/surgery without saving the cancer then is homicide.

http://hannaowen.com invalid-0

The right to choose what you do your own body is everybodys right. The abortion is not murder for what I can say about this topic and it has never been. If you see the evolution of man it’s not that uncommon to make cruel assumptions and take life from a human being even after birth.

invalid-0

Should we legalize post birth homicide?

farhaj

I would say it that abortion is rather a very bad thing and still can’t understand why do people tend to go up to this level and that also with ones own child.